McAfee Secure

CNCF CKA Bundle

Exam Code: CKA

Exam Name Certified Kubernetes Administrator

Certification Provider: CNCF

Corresponding Certification: CKA

CNCF CKA Bundle $44.99
CKA Sample 1 CKA Sample 2 CKA Sample 3 CKA Sample 4 CKA Sample 5 CKA Sample 6 CKA Sample 7 CKA Sample 8 CKA Sample 9 CKA Sample 10

100% CNCF CKA Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real CKA Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    CKA Questions & Answers

    58 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual CKA exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • CKA Video Course

    CKA Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    CKA Video Course is developed by CNCF Professionals to help you pass the CKA exam.

    Description

    This course will improve your knowledge and skills required to pass Certified Kubernetes Administrator exam.
  • Study Guide

    CKA Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 268-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace CKA exam.

Certified Kubernetes Administrator (CKA) Practice Tests

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Total Cost: $194.97
Bundle Price: $149.98

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    58 Questions

    $124.99
  • CKA Video Course

    Training Course

    138 Video Lectures

    $39.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    268 PDF Pages

    $29.99

CNCF CKA Practice Test 71

Question 700

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway internal-gw in ledger from ./gateway/invoice-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Treat cross-namespace route attachment and backend references as controlled trust boundaries.
  2. Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately.
  3. Track TLS Secret renewal and enforce appropriate ingress-controller security policies.
  4. Prefer short-lived diagnostic tunnels and avoid treating port-forward as a production ingress path.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. The relevant mechanism is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That safeguard is relevant to: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The current failure instead follows from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Its prevention measure is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

C:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. Here the sustained control must address: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Choose “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

D:

That safeguard is relevant to: Port-forwarding creates a client-side tunnel to a selected backend and does not change the Service type or network exposure. The current failure instead follows from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Its prevention measure is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

Question 701

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway edge-gw in observability from ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n kube-system get configmap coredns -o yaml and review the Corefile.
  2. Run kubectl -n observability expose deployment metrics-api --name=metrics-svc --type=NodePort --port=8080 --target-port=3000.
  3. Run kubectl -n observability expose deployment metrics-api --name=metrics-svc --type=ClusterIP --port=8080 --target-port=3000.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide. The reported case instead depends on: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings”.

B:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: A NodePort Service allocates a cluster-configured host port on each node while retaining its cluster IP routing. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings”.

C:

The offered action targets: A ClusterIP Service provides stable in-cluster virtual addressing and directs traffic to selected ready Pod endpoints. The case facts point instead to: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Implement “Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings” to address that specific condition.

Question 702

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway edge-gw in observability from ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.
  2. CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide.
  3. Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners.
  4. Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: CoreDNS behavior is configured separately from Service definitions, and incorrect DNS plugins or cluster domain can break discovery cluster-wide. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

C:

This principle describes a separate cause: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The reported condition is governed by: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

D:

Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Question 703

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway edge-gw in observability from ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n observability describe service metrics-svc and perform a connection test to port 8080.
  2. Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions.
  3. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get httproute dispatch-route -o yaml and inspect parent acceptance and resolved-reference conditions.
  4. Run kubectl -n observability get networkpolicy metrics-api-deny-ingress -o yaml and perform an authorized denied-connection probe.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: The Service port is what clients connect to, while targetPort must reach the actual backend listener. In the current case, the governing reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The direct verification is “Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

C:

The alternative verifies a different condition: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The current case instead depends on: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Confirm that “Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

D:

That test belongs to another control with this basis: A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress. In the current case, the governing reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The direct verification is “Run kubectl -n observability get gateway edge-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

Question 704

At Horizon observability, in a disposable simulated environment during a monitored release window: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway edge-gw in observability from ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Audit controller capability and exposed service access policies before enabling public ingress.
  2. Limit NodePort exposure through network controls and remove temporary external test services.
  3. Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately.
  4. Treat cross-namespace route attachment and backend references as controlled trust boundaries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n observability apply -f ./gateway/metrics-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. The relevant mechanism is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This routine guards against another mechanism: LoadBalancer Services request external routing from a supported infrastructure controller; a bare cluster does not guarantee an external address. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The matching preventive check is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

B:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: A NodePort Service allocates a cluster-configured host port on each node while retaining its cluster IP routing. Here the sustained control must address: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Choose “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

D:

This routine guards against another mechanism: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The matching preventive check is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

Question 705

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway regional-gw in fulfillment from ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings.
  2. Run kubectl -n fulfillment expose deployment dispatch-api --name=dispatch-svc --type=ClusterIP --port=9090 --target-port=9000.
  3. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get endpointslices -l kubernetes.io/service-name=dispatch-svc -o wide.
  4. Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./policies/dispatch-api-deny-egress.yaml after reviewing impact on DNS and observability.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The offered action targets: A ClusterIP Service provides stable in-cluster virtual addressing and directs traffic to selected ready Pod endpoints. The case facts point instead to: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Implement “Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings” to address that specific condition.

C:

This alternative is a response to another technical cause: EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. The reported case instead depends on: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The action that directly addresses it is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings”.

D:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: An egress-isolating NetworkPolicy can block Pod outbound connections; DNS and required dependencies need explicit allowances. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings”.

Question 706

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway regional-gw in fulfillment from ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. An egress-isolating NetworkPolicy can block Pod outbound connections; DNS and required dependencies need explicit allowances.
  2. Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.
  3. DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist.
  4. Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: An egress-isolating NetworkPolicy can block Pod outbound connections; DNS and required dependencies need explicit allowances. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

C:

DNS resolution may fail when CoreDNS replicas are unhealthy even when the requested Service and Pod endpoints exist. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

D:

The offered statement is true for this other mechanism: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. It does not explain the facts described here, which follow from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Question 707

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway regional-gw in fulfillment from ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which observation best verifies the requested outcome rather than an unrelated state?

  1. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get httproute dispatch-route -o yaml and inspect parent acceptance and resolved-reference conditions.
  2. Run kubectl -n fulfillment describe networkpolicy dispatch-api-deny-egress and test expected blocked destinations.
  3. Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions.
  4. Run authorized connectivity probes from both approved and unapproved namespaces.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions. This validates the affected object or control path, rather than only showing a command completed. The underlying reason is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The intended action is: Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The current issue is governed by: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

B:

The alternative verifies a different condition: An egress-isolating NetworkPolicy can block Pod outbound connections; DNS and required dependencies need explicit allowances. The current case instead depends on: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Confirm that “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

D:

This observation would test a different technical dependency: A namespaceSelector in a NetworkPolicy ingress peer matches namespace labels; it differs from matching arbitrary Pod labels across namespaces. The current issue is governed by: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Its decisive check is “Run kubectl -n fulfillment get gateway regional-gw -o yaml and inspect Accepted and Programmed conditions”.

Question 708

At Pinecrest logistics, in a sandbox Kubernetes cluster during a recovery tabletop exercise: Gateway API CRDs and a suitable controller already exist; create reviewed Gateway regional-gw in fulfillment from ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which operational control most directly prevents this failure or configuration drift?

  1. Track TLS Secret renewal and enforce appropriate ingress-controller security policies.
  2. Limit NodePort exposure through network controls and remove temporary external test services.
  3. Treat cross-namespace route attachment and backend references as controlled trust boundaries.
  4. Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately. This reduces recurrence of the specific operational failure. It reinforces the action: Run kubectl -n fulfillment apply -f ./gateway/dispatch-api-gateway.yaml after confirming GatewayClass and listener settings. The relevant mechanism is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The suggested review tracks a different technical risk: Ingress TLS termination relies on a controller and a referenced TLS Secret; updating a Service alone does not install certificates. Here the sustained control must address: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Choose “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

B:

That safeguard is relevant to: A NodePort Service allocates a cluster-configured host port on each node while retaining its cluster IP routing. The current failure instead follows from: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. Its prevention measure is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

C:

This routine guards against another mechanism: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The recurring exposure in the current case is: Gateway API separates infrastructure listener ownership from application route attachments and depends on controller support. The matching preventive check is “Check gateway class/controller compatibility and delegate route attachment privileges deliberately”.

Question 709

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A prepared HTTPRoute invoice-route in ledger must attach to approved Gateway internal-gw and route requests for invoice.example.test to Service invoice-svc. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which command or initial safe diagnostic step best addresses the stated lab task?

  1. Run kubectl -n ledger port-forward service/invoice-svc 18080:80 in a temporary session.
  2. Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs.
  3. Run kubectl -n ledger run invoice-api-dns-test --image=busybox:1.36 --restart=Never --command -- nslookup invoice-svc.ledger.svc.cluster.local and inspect the Pod logs.
  4. Run kubectl -n ledger expose deployment invoice-api --name=invoice-svc --type=LoadBalancer --port=80 --target-port=8080.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs. This is the appropriate command-line action or first safe diagnostic. The technical reason is: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. Validate the result with: Run kubectl -n ledger get httproute invoice-route -o yaml and inspect parent acceptance and resolved-reference conditions. Execute changes only in an authorized disposable lab or after normal production change controls.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The offered action targets: Port-forwarding creates a client-side tunnel to a selected backend and does not change the Service type or network exposure. The case facts point instead to: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. Implement “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs” to address that specific condition.

C:

The proposed action belongs to the mechanism: Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution. Here the stated fault follows a different mechanism: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The corrective choice is “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs”.

D:

The offered action targets: LoadBalancer Services request external routing from a supported infrastructure controller; a bare cluster does not guarantee an external address. The case facts point instead to: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. Implement “Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs” to address that specific condition.

Question 710

At Northstar finance, in an isolated training cluster during a scheduled maintenance rehearsal: A prepared HTTPRoute invoice-route in ledger must attach to approved Gateway internal-gw and route requests for invoice.example.test to Service invoice-svc. Work only within the stated target and verify before declaring success. Which Kubernetes behavior best explains the required change or diagnosis?

  1. A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress.
  2. EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist.
  3. Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners.
  4. Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. This explains the stated condition. The corresponding action is: Run kubectl -n ledger apply -f ./gateway/invoice-api-route.yaml after confirming parentRefs, hostnames and backendRefs. The direct acceptance evidence is: Run kubectl -n ledger get httproute invoice-route -o yaml and inspect parent acceptance and resolved-reference conditions.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle describes a separate cause: A selecting NetworkPolicy with ingress isolation and no allow rules denies new ingress to selected Pods except protocol-specific policy behavior; it does not itself control egress. The reported condition is governed by: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.

B:

EndpointSlices represent Service backend addresses and readiness; Service existence alone does not prove endpoints exist. That explanation applies to a different technical failure. Here the controlling principle is: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners.

D:

This principle describes a separate cause: Cluster DNS should resolve Service names inside its configured domain; host-side DNS results do not prove in-cluster resolution. The reported condition is governed by: Gateway API HTTPRoutes express matching and backend behavior while Gateway resources own compatible listeners. The two mechanisms should not be conflated.