McAfee Secure

HP HPE7-A01 Bundle

Exam Code: HPE7-A01

Exam Name HPE Network Campus Access Professional

Certification Provider: HP

Corresponding Certification: HPE Aruba Networking Certified Professional - Campus Access

HP HPE7-A01 Bundle $19.99
HPE7-A01 Sample 1 HPE7-A01 Sample 2 HPE7-A01 Sample 3 HPE7-A01 Sample 4 HPE7-A01 Sample 5 HPE7-A01 Sample 6 HPE7-A01 Sample 7 HPE7-A01 Sample 8 HPE7-A01 Sample 9 HPE7-A01 Sample 10

100% HP HPE7-A01 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real HPE7-A01 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

  • Questions & Answers

    HPE7-A01 Questions & Answers

    161 Questions & Answers

    The ultimate exam preparation tool, Questions & Answers mirrors the actual HPE7-A01 exam while allowing you to hone and measure every aspect of your test-taking ability.

  • Study Guide

    HPE7-A01 Study Guide

    1264 PDF Pages

    Developed by industry experts, this 1264-page guide spells out in painstaking detail all of the information you need to ace HPE7-A01 exam.

HPE Network Campus Access Professional (HPE7-A01) 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: $154.98
Bundle Price: $134.99

Purchase Individually

  • Questions & Answers

    Questions & Answers

    161 Questions

    $124.99
  • Study Guide

    Study Guide

    1264 PDF Pages

    $29.99

HP HPE7-A01 Practice Test 92

Question 910

A policy requires restricted services in a management VRF to reach a shared NTP system but forbids broad connectivity to the production user VRF. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect BGP neighbor logs, configured ASNs and TCP session reachability.
  2. Inspect source and destination VRF routes and enforced prefix filters.
  3. Trace IPv6 routes in both directions and inspect remote return-path entries.
  4. Inspect neighbor rejection logs and observed hello/dead intervals.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: VRF separation blocks required shared services unless an explicit controlled path exists. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a campus BGP peering to an ISP remains Idle because the local neighbor remote-AS setting is incorrect, but is less direct for the issue at hand: VRF separation blocks required shared services unless an explicit controlled path exists.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a device sends packets to a remote IPv6 network, but return traffic fails because the remote router lacks the source-prefix route, but is less direct for the issue at hand: VRF separation blocks required shared services unless an explicit controlled path exists.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a data center's OSPF router and campus peer have matching area IDs but fail adjacency because their hello/dead timers differ, but is less direct for the issue at hand: VRF separation blocks required shared services unless an explicit controlled path exists.

Question 911

A distribution switch learns a specific /24 route and a broader /16 summary; engineers expect the summary to override the specific route. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect selected routes for the internal prefix and a truly unknown destination.
  2. Compare matching route entries and their prefix lengths.
  3. Inspect originated external LSAs and the associated route-map match conditions.
  4. Compare received versus accepted BGP routes and prefix-list counters.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: forwarding decisions favor the most specific matching destination prefix, not simply the broadest summary. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a default route learned from dynamic routing persists despite a better directly connected route for an internal subnet, but is less direct for the issue at hand: forwarding decisions favor the most specific matching destination prefix, not simply the broadest summary.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a campus OSPF redistribution policy accidentally injects a default route from a disconnected guest gateway into the internal core, but is less direct for the issue at hand: forwarding decisions favor the most specific matching destination prefix, not simply the broadest summary.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a BGP peer is Established but upstream routes are not accepted due to a prefix filter that rejects the approved campus CIDR, but is less direct for the issue at hand: forwarding decisions favor the most specific matching destination prefix, not simply the broadest summary.

Question 912

A campus OSPF redistribution policy accidentally injects a default route from a disconnected guest gateway into the internal core. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Compare received versus accepted BGP routes and prefix-list counters.
  2. Inspect BFD session state and timing alongside routing neighbor state.
  3. Inspect originated external LSAs and the associated route-map match conditions.
  4. Inspect neighbor rejection logs and observed hello/dead intervals.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: an overly broad redistribution policy advertises a default reachability the gateway cannot actually provide. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a BGP peer is Established but upstream routes are not accepted due to a prefix filter that rejects the approved campus CIDR, but is less direct for the issue at hand: an overly broad redistribution policy advertises a default reachability the gateway cannot actually provide.

B:

This would be a reasonable check when a core's next-hop route remains installed during a routed link fault because physical interface status stays up across an intermediate carrier, but is less direct for the issue at hand: an overly broad redistribution policy advertises a default reachability the gateway cannot actually provide.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a data center's OSPF router and campus peer have matching area IDs but fail adjacency because their hello/dead timers differ, but is less direct for the issue at hand: an overly broad redistribution policy advertises a default reachability the gateway cannot actually provide.

Question 913

A branch has two equally routed core uplinks, but one should be reserved as a backup for high-priority traffic. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect BFD session state and timing alongside routing neighbor state.
  2. Compare received versus accepted BGP routes and prefix-list counters.
  3. Inspect effective route metrics and installed next-hop set.
  4. Inspect ABR area interfaces and inter-area LSAs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: equal-cost route selection can use both paths when the design expects one standby route. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a core's next-hop route remains installed during a routed link fault because physical interface status stays up across an intermediate carrier, but is less direct for the issue at hand: equal-cost route selection can use both paths when the design expects one standby route.

B:

This would be a reasonable check when a BGP peer is Established but upstream routes are not accepted due to a prefix filter that rejects the approved campus CIDR, but is less direct for the issue at hand: equal-cost route selection can use both paths when the design expects one standby route.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF multi-area design attaches a remote area directly to another remote area without an approved backbone connection or virtual-link design, but is less direct for the issue at hand: equal-cost route selection can use both paths when the design expects one standby route.

Question 914

A device sends packets to a remote IPv6 network, but return traffic fails because the remote router lacks the source-prefix route. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect source and destination VRF routes and enforced prefix filters.
  2. Inspect BGP neighbor logs, configured ASNs and TCP session reachability.
  3. Run route lookups in both VRFs for the affected destination.
  4. Trace IPv6 routes in both directions and inspect remote return-path entries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: one-way route knowledge is insufficient for a completed IP conversation. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a policy requires restricted services in a management VRF to reach a shared NTP system but forbids broad connectivity to the production user VRF, but is less direct for the issue at hand: one-way route knowledge is insufficient for a completed IP conversation.

B:

This would be a reasonable check when a campus BGP peering to an ISP remains Idle because the local neighbor remote-AS setting is incorrect, but is less direct for the issue at hand: one-way route knowledge is insufficient for a completed IP conversation.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a campus routes guest and employee traffic in separate VRFs but a technician adds a guest static route only to the employee VRF, but is less direct for the issue at hand: one-way route knowledge is insufficient for a completed IP conversation.

Question 915

A campus BGP peering to an ISP remains Idle because the local neighbor remote-AS setting is incorrect. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect OSPF neighbor state and exchange-time MTU-related events.
  2. Inspect interface network type, DR/BDR identity and neighbor states.
  3. Inspect BGP neighbor logs, configured ASNs and TCP session reachability.
  4. Inspect the longest-prefix route match and next-hop ARP/neighbor state.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: BGP session establishment depends on matching peer identity and reachable transport details. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF adjacency remains in ExStart after a new routed uplink is installed with conflicting MTU settings, but is less direct for the issue at hand: BGP session establishment depends on matching peer identity and reachable transport details.

B:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF neighbor becomes stuck at 2-Way on a multiaccess broadcast network and the engineer expects every pair of routers to reach Full, but is less direct for the issue at hand: BGP session establishment depends on matching peer identity and reachable transport details.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a distribution switch cannot reach an application subnet because its static route references an incorrect next-hop IP, but is less direct for the issue at hand: BGP session establishment depends on matching peer identity and reachable transport details.

Question 916

A BGP peer is Established but upstream routes are not accepted due to a prefix filter that rejects the approved campus CIDR. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Compare interface IP addresses, masks and neighbor ARP state.
  2. Compare received versus accepted BGP routes and prefix-list counters.
  3. Inspect neighbor rejection logs and observed hello/dead intervals.
  4. Inspect effective route metrics and installed next-hop set.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: a working BGP session can still install no routes when policy filters reject them. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when a team adds a new L3 transit VLAN but configures the wrong IP mask on one side of the point-to-point link, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a working BGP session can still install no routes when policy filters reject them.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a data center's OSPF router and campus peer have matching area IDs but fail adjacency because their hello/dead timers differ, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a working BGP session can still install no routes when policy filters reject them.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a branch has two equally routed core uplinks, but one should be reserved as a backup for high-priority traffic, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a working BGP session can still install no routes when policy filters reject them.

Question 917

A network team wants to aggregate many campus subnets but summarizes beyond a boundary that includes networks it does not own. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect OSPF interface configuration and hello reception.
  2. Inspect OSPF neighbor state and exchange-time MTU-related events.
  3. Compare interface IP addresses, masks and neighbor ARP state.
  4. Expand each summary to its covered prefix list and compare actual allocations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: overbroad aggregation can attract traffic for prefixes without a valid downstream path. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when two Aruba CX routers run OSPF on a point-to-point uplink but show no neighbor because one interface is passive, but is less direct for the issue at hand: overbroad aggregation can attract traffic for prefixes without a valid downstream path.

B:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF adjacency remains in ExStart after a new routed uplink is installed with conflicting MTU settings, but is less direct for the issue at hand: overbroad aggregation can attract traffic for prefixes without a valid downstream path.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a team adds a new L3 transit VLAN but configures the wrong IP mask on one side of the point-to-point link, but is less direct for the issue at hand: overbroad aggregation can attract traffic for prefixes without a valid downstream path.

Question 918

A core's next-hop route remains installed during a routed link fault because physical interface status stays up across an intermediate carrier. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Compare router IDs across OSPF peers and neighbor event logs.
  2. Inspect BFD session state and timing alongside routing neighbor state.
  3. Trace IPv6 routes in both directions and inspect remote return-path entries.
  4. Inspect ABR area interfaces and inter-area LSAs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: link carrier alone does not prove end-to-end forwarding through intermediate devices. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF domain has duplicate router IDs after a lab switch image is cloned into production, but is less direct for the issue at hand: link carrier alone does not prove end-to-end forwarding through intermediate devices.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a device sends packets to a remote IPv6 network, but return traffic fails because the remote router lacks the source-prefix route, but is less direct for the issue at hand: link carrier alone does not prove end-to-end forwarding through intermediate devices.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF multi-area design attaches a remote area directly to another remote area without an approved backbone connection or virtual-link design, but is less direct for the issue at hand: link carrier alone does not prove end-to-end forwarding through intermediate devices.

Question 919

An OSPF router has a healthy adjacency but a destination prefix is missing after someone configured a restrictive inbound route filter. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Inspect learned LSAs versus installed route selection and applied route policies.
  2. Inspect source and destination VRF routes and enforced prefix filters.
  3. Inspect active route source, preference and next-hop reachability.
  4. Compare interface IP addresses, masks and neighbor ARP state.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: a neighbor can exchange control traffic while route acceptance remains policy-constrained. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This would be a reasonable check when a policy requires restricted services in a management VRF to reach a shared NTP system but forbids broad connectivity to the production user VRF, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a neighbor can exchange control traffic while route acceptance remains policy-constrained.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when a WAN cutover leaves a static route pointing to an old gateway while the current routing protocol advertises a new next hop, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a neighbor can exchange control traffic while route acceptance remains policy-constrained.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a team adds a new L3 transit VLAN but configures the wrong IP mask on one side of the point-to-point link, but is less direct for the issue at hand: a neighbor can exchange control traffic while route acceptance remains policy-constrained.

Question 920

A campus advertises overlapping VLAN subnet ranges across two sites, generating unpredictable routing to both. Which first diagnostic check is most useful before changing the network?

  1. Compare prefix inventories and longest-prefix route decisions across sites.
  2. Compare router IDs across OSPF peers and neighbor event logs.
  3. Inspect learned LSAs versus installed route selection and applied route policies.
  4. Trace IPv6 routes in both directions and inspect remote return-path entries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This check collects evidence at the layer implicated by the symptom: duplicate destination prefixes prevent unambiguous routed reachability between sites. Examine the evidence before choosing the corrective change.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF domain has duplicate router IDs after a lab switch image is cloned into production, but is less direct for the issue at hand: duplicate destination prefixes prevent unambiguous routed reachability between sites.

C:

This would be a reasonable check when an OSPF router has a healthy adjacency but a destination prefix is missing after someone configured a restrictive inbound route filter, but is less direct for the issue at hand: duplicate destination prefixes prevent unambiguous routed reachability between sites.

D:

This would be a reasonable check when a device sends packets to a remote IPv6 network, but return traffic fails because the remote router lacks the source-prefix route, but is less direct for the issue at hand: duplicate destination prefixes prevent unambiguous routed reachability between sites.