New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

VMware 2V0-13.24 Exam - Topic 3 Question 2 Discussion

Actual exam question for VMware's 2V0-13.24 exam
Question #: 2
Topic #: 3
[All 2V0-13.24 Questions]

An architect is working on a leaf-spine design requirement for NSX Federation in VMware Cloud Foundation. Which recommendation should the architect document?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

NSX Federation in VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 extends networking and security across multiple VCF instances (e.g., across data centers) using a leaf-spine underlay network. The architect must recommend a physical network design that supports this. Let's evaluate:

Option A: Use a physical network that is configured for EIGRP routing adjacency

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) is a Cisco-proprietary routing protocol. NSX Federation requires a Layer 3 underlay with dynamic routing (e.g., BGP, OSPF), but EIGRP isn't a VMware-recommended standard for NSX leaf-spine designs. BGP is preferred for its scalability and interoperability in NSX-T 3.2 (used in VCF 5.2). This option is not optimal.

Option B: Layer 3 device that supports OSPF

Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is a supported routing protocol for NSX underlays, alongside BGP. A Layer 3 device with OSPF could work in a leaf-spine topology, but VMware documentation emphasizes BGP as the primary choice for NSX Federation due to its robustness in multi-site scenarios. OSPF is valid but not the strongest recommendation for Federation-specific designs.

Option C: Ensure that the latency between VMware Cloud Foundation instances that are connected in an NSX Federation is less than 1500 ms

NSX Federation requires low latency between sites for control plane consistency (Global Manager to Local Managers). The maximum supported latency is 150 ms (not 1500 ms), per VMware specs. 1500 ms (1.5 seconds) is far too high and would disrupt Federation operations, making this incorrect.

Option D: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances

This is correct. NSX Federation relies on NSX-T overlay traffic (Geneve encapsulation) across sites, which benefits from jumbo frames (MTU 9000) to reduce fragmentation and improve performance. In a leaf-spine design, enabling jumbo frames on all physical network components (switches, routers) between VCF instances ensures efficient transport of tunneled traffic (e.g., for stretched networks). VMware strongly recommends this for NSX underlays, making it the best recommendation.

Conclusion:

The architect should document D: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances. This aligns with VCF 5.2 and NSX Federation's leaf-spine design requirements for optimal performance and scalability.


VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: NSX Federation Networking)

NSX-T 3.2 Reference Design (integrated in VCF 5.2): Leaf-Spine Underlay Requirements

VMware NSX-T 3.2 Installation Guide: Jumbo Frame Recommendations

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Margart
2 months ago
I disagree, I’d stick with OSPF over EIGRP any day.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alonzo
2 months ago
Jumbo frames are a must for performance, no doubt!
upvoted 0 times
...
Jeannetta
2 months ago
OSPF is definitely the way to go for routing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Suzi
3 months ago
I think EIGRP could work too, but OSPF is more common.
upvoted 0 times
...
Yun
3 months ago
Surprised they didn't mention latency as a key factor!
upvoted 0 times
...
Danica
3 months ago
I vaguely remember that EIGRP isn't typically recommended for cloud setups; I think OSPF might be the safer bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eileen
3 months ago
Jumbo frames seem relevant for performance, but I wonder if they are necessary for this specific design requirement.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sylvie
4 months ago
I think I practiced a question similar to this, and I feel like ensuring low latency is crucial for NSX Federation, but I can't recall the exact threshold.
upvoted 0 times
...
Georgene
4 months ago
I remember something about OSPF being important for routing in cloud environments, but I'm not entirely sure if it's the best choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Alyce
4 months ago
I'm not familiar with EIGRP, so I'll probably rule that out. The other choices seem more likely to be the correct recommendation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisha
4 months ago
I remember learning about OSPF and jumbo frames in the context of VMware networking. Those options seem relevant here.
upvoted 0 times
...
William
4 months ago
Okay, let's think this through step-by-step. The key is to focus on the requirements for the physical network between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the specifics of NSX Federation and leaf-spine design. I'll need to review my notes carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Krissy
5 months ago
This question seems straightforward, I think I can handle it.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel