ExamGecko
Login
Home / F5 / 301b / List of questions
Ask Question

F5 301b Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 6

Add to Whishlist

List of questions

Question 51

Report Export Collapse

An application is configured on an LTM device:

Virtual server: 10.0.0.1:80 (VLAN vlan301)

SNAT IP: 10.0.0.1

Pool members: 10.0.1.1:8080, 10.0.1.2:8080, 10.0.1.3:8080 (VLAN vlan302)

Which packet capture should the LTM Specialist perform on the LTM device command line interface to capture only client traffic specifically for this virtual server?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 52

Report Export Collapse

An application is configured on an LTM device:

Virtual server: 10.0.0.1:80 (VLAN vlan301)

SNAT IP: 10.0.0.1

Pool members: 10.0.1.1:8080, 10.0.1.2:8080, 10.0.1.3:8080 (VLAN vlan302)

Which packet capture should the LTM Specialist perform on the LTM device command line interface to capture only server traffic specifically for this application?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 53

Report Export Collapse

An LTM Specialist sees these entries in /var/log/ltm:

Oct 25 03:34:31 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Oct 25 03:34:32 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Oct 25 03:34:32 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Oct 25 03:34:32 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Oct 25 03:34:32 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Oct 25 03:34:33 tmm warning tmm[7150]: 01260017:4: Connection attempt to insecure SSL server (see RFC5746) aborteD. 172.16.20.1:443

Assume 172.16.20.0/24 is attached to the VLAN 'internal.'

What should the LTM Specialist use to troubleshoot this issue?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 54

Report Export Collapse

A virtual server for a set of web services is constructed on an LTM device. The LTM Specialist has created an iRule and applied this iRule to the virtual server:

when HTTP_REQUEST {

switch [HTTP::uri] {

'/WS1/ws.jsp' {

log local0. '[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to JSP Pool'

pool JSP

}

default { log local0. '[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool'

pool NonJSP

}

}

}

However, the iRule is NOT behaving as expected. Below is a snapshot of the log:

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

/ws1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/ws1/ws.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

What is the problem?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 55

Report Export Collapse

An LTM Specialist is tasked with ensuring that the syslogs for the LTM device are sent to a remote syslog server.

The following is an extract from the config file detailing the node and monitor that the LTM device is using for the remote syslog server:

monitor

Syslog_15002 {

defaults from udp

dest *:15002

}

node 91.223.45.231 {

monitor Syslog_15002

screen RemoteSYSLOG

}

There seem to be problems communicating with the remote syslog server. However, the pool monitor shows that the remote server is up.

The network department has confirmed that there are no firewall rules or networking issues preventing the LTM device from communicating with the syslog server. The department responsible for the remote syslog server indicates that there may be problems with the syslog server. The LTM Specialist checks the BIG-IP LTM logs for errors relating to the remote syslog server. None are found. The LTM Specialist does a tcpdump:

tcpdump -nn port 15002, with the following results:

21:28:36.395543 IP 192.168.100.100.44772 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 19

21:28:36.429073 IP 192.168.100.100.39499 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 169

21:28:36.430714 IP 192.168.100.100.39499 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 181

21:28:36.840524 IP 192.168.100.100.39499 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 169

21:28:36.846547 IP 192.168.100.100.39499 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 181

21:28:39.886343 IP 192.168.100.100.39499 > 91.223.45.231.15002: UDP, length 144

NotE. 192.168.100.100 is the self IP of the LTM device.

Why are there no errors for the remote syslog server in the log files?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 56

Report Export Collapse

Given a tcpdump on an LTM device from both sides of a connection on the External and Internal VLANs, how should an LTM Specialist determine if SNAT is enabled for a particular pool?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 57

Report Export Collapse

An LTM Specialist has a OneConnect profile and HTTP profile configured on a virtual server to load balance an HTTP application.

The following HTTP headers are seen in a network trace when a client connects to the virtual server:

Clientside:

GET / HTTP/1.1

Host: 192.168.136.100

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0

Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8

Accept-EncodinG. gzip, deflate

Connection: keep-alive

Serverside:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

DatE. 5 Jun 1989 17:06:55 GMT

Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)

Vary: Accept-Encoding

Content-EncodinG. gzip

Content-LengtH. 3729

X-Cnection: close

Content-TypE. text/html

The LTM Specialist notices the OneConnect feature is working incorrectly.

Why is OneConnect functioning incorrectly?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 58

Report Export Collapse

A virtual server for a set of web services is constructed on an LTM device. The LTM Specialist has created an iRule and applied this iRule to the virtual server:

when HTTP_REQUEST {

switch [HTTP::uri] {

'/ws1/ws.jsp' {

log local0. '[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to JSP Pool'

pool JSP

}

default { log local0. '[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool'

pool NonJSP

}

}

}

However, the iRule is NOT behaving as expected. Below is a snapshot of the log:

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/WS1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

/ws1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

/WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool

/ws1/ws.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool

What should the LTM Specialist do to resolve this?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 59

Report Export Collapse

An LTM device has a virtual server configured as a Performance Layer 4 virtual listening on 0.0.0.0:0 to perform routing of packets to an upstream router. The client machine at IP address 192.168.0.4 is attempting to contact a host upstream of the LTM device on IP address 10.0.0.99.

The network flow is asymmetrical, and the following TCP capture displays:

# tcpdump -nnni 0.0 'host 192.168.0.4 and host 10.0.0.99'

tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode listening on 0.0, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes

05:07:55.499954 IP 192.168.0.4.35345 > 10.0.0.99.443: S 3205656213:3205656213(0) ack 3267995082 win 1480

05:07:55.499983 IP 10.0.0.99.443 > 192.168.0.4.35345: R 1:1(0) ack 1 win 0

05:07:56.499960 IP 192.168.0.4.35345 > 10.0.0.99.443: S 3205656213:3205656213(0) ack 3267995082 win 1480

05:07:56.499990 IP 10.0.0.99.443 > 192.168.0.4.35345: R 1:1(0) ack 1 win 0

4 packets captured

Which option within the fastL4 profile needs to be enabled by the LTM Specialist to prevent the LTM device from rejecting the flow?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member

Question 60

Report Export Collapse

An LTM Specialist has configured a virtual server for www.example.com, load balancing connections to a pool of application servers that provide a shopping cart application. Cookie persistence is enabled on the virtual server. Users are able to connect to the application, but the user's shopping cart fails to update. A traffic capture shows the following:

Request:

GET /cart/updatecart.php HTTP/1.1

Host: www.example.com

Connection: keep-alive

Cache-Control: max-age=0

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_7_5) AppleWebKit/537.4 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/22.0.1229.94 Safari/537.4

Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8

Accept-EncodinG. gzip,deflate,sdch

Accept-LanguagE. en-US,en;q=0.8

Accept-Charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3

CookiE. BIGipServerwebstore_pool=353636524.20480.0000

Response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK

DatE. Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:00:13 GMT

Server: Apache/2.2.22 (Ubuntu)

X-Powered-By: PHP/5.3.10-1ubuntu3.1

Set-CookiE. cartID=647A5EA6657828C69DB8188981CB5; path=/; domain=wb01.example.com

Keep-AlivE. timeout=5, max=100

Connection: Keep-Alive

Content-TypE. text/html

No changes can be made to the application.

What should the LTM Specialist do to resolve the problem?

Become a Premium Member for full access
  Unlock Premium Member
Total 210 questions
Go to page: of 21
Search
Open VPLUS File
Convert VPLUS to PDF

Related questions

An LTM Specialist configures an HTTP monitor as follows: ltm monitor http stats_http_monitor { defaults-from http destination *:* interval 5 recv 'Health check: OK' send 'GET /stats/stats.html HTTP/1.1\\r \\nHost : www.example.com\\r\\nAccept-EncodinG. gzip, deflate \\r\\nConnection : close\\r\\n \\r\\n' time-until-up 0 timeout 16 } The monitor is marking all nodes as down. A trace of the HTTP conversation shows the following: GET /stats/stats.html HTTP/1.1 Host: www.example.com Accept-EncodinG. gzip, deflate Connection: close HTTP/1.1 401 Authorization Required DatE. Tue, 23 Oct 2012 19:38:56 GMT Server: Apache/2.2.15 (Unix) WWW-AuthenticatE. Basic realm='Please enter your credentials' Content-LengtH. 480 Connection: close Content-TypE. text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Which action will resolve the problem?
An LTM Specialist configures the following iRule on an LTM device: when HTTP_REQUEST { if {[string tolower [HTTP::uri]] contains '/URI1/' } { pool Pool1 } elseif {[string tolower [HTTP::uri]] contains '/URI2/' } { pool Pool2 } elseif {[string tolower [HTTP::uri]] contains '/URI3/' } { pool Pool3 } else { pool Pool4} } Given the following request: http://www.example.comURI1/index.html?fu=bar&pass=1234 Which pool will be selected by the iRule?
An LTM device is serving an FTP virtual server that has three pool members. The FTP pool members are monitored via TCP port 21. Customers are reporting that they are able to log in, but are sometimes unable to upload files to the server. Which monitor should the LTM Specialist configure to verify that the servers can handle file uploads?
The LTM Specialist is writing a custom HTTP monitor for a web application and has viewed the content by accessing the site directly via their browser. The monitor continually fails. The monitor configuration is: ltm monitor http /Common/exampleComMonitor { defaults-from /Common/http destination *:* interval 5 recv 'Recent Searches' send 'GET /app/feed/current\?uid=20145 HTTP/1.1 \\r\\nHost : www.example.com\\r\\nAccept-EncodinG. gzip, deflate \\r\\nConnection : close\\r\\n \\r\\n' time-until-up 0 timeout 16 } A trace shows the following request and response: Request: GET /app/feed/current?uid=20145 HTTP/1.1 Host www.example.com Accept-Encoding gzip, deflate Connection: close Response: HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily Date Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:45:52 GMT Server Apache Location https://example.com/login.jsp Content-Encoding gzip Content-Type text/html;charset=UTF-8 Set-CookiE. JSESSIONID=261EFFBDA8EC3036FBCC22D991AC6835; Path=/app/feed/current?uid=20145 What is the problem?
-- Exhibit -- -- Exhibit -- Refer to the exhibit. An LTM Specialist is troubleshooting an HTTP monitor that is marking a pool member as down. Connecting to the pool member directly through a browser shows the application is up and functioning correctly. How should the send string be modified to correct this issue?
-- Exhibit -- -- Exhibit -- Refer to the exhibit. An LTM Specialist is troubleshooting a new HTTP monitor on a pool. The pool member is functioning correctly when accessed directly through a browser, although the monitor is marking the member as down. As part of the troubleshooting, the LTM Specialist has captured the monitor traffic via tcpdump. How should the LTM Specialist resolve this issue?
-- Exhibit -- -- Exhibit -- Refer to the exhibit. A client attempts to connect from a Google Chrome browser to a virtual server on a BIG-IP LTM. The virtual server is SSL Offloaded. When the client connects, the client receives an SSL error. The client receives the same errors when trying Mozilla Firefox and Internet Explorer browsers. The LTM Specialist does an ssldump on the virtual server and receives the results as per the exhibit. How should this be resolved?
-- Exhibit -- -- Exhibit -- Refer to the exhibit. An LTM device is used to load balance web content over a secure channel. The developers of the web content have done a trace using an HTTP profiler application. They believe that allowing the LTM device to compress traffic to the client will improve performance. The client can utilize GZIP or deflate compression algorithms. An LTM Specialist must implement the compression. The LTM Specialist has completed the following actions: 1. Create the relevant profile. 2. Apply the relevant profile to the virtual server (VS). After applying the relevant profile, the LTM device is failing to compress the traffic. Instead, the traffic is being served with an error. What is the problem?
-- Exhibit -- -- Exhibit -- Refer to the exhibit. Which step should an LTM Specialist take next to finish upgrading to HD1.3?
An LTM Specialist configures a new HTTP virtual server on an LTM device external VLAN. The web servers are connected to the LTM device internal VLAN. Clients trying to connect to the virtual server are unable to establish a connection. A packet capture shows an HTTP response from a web server to the client and then a reset from the client to the web server. From which two locations could the packet capture have been collected? (Choose two.)