McAfee-Secured Website

Exam 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 54

Question 530

During a planned campus-network change at a university faculty building in Boston, operators discover that a narrow static route is shadowed by a more-specific incorrect prefix on a distribution switch. The design must preserve teaching tools and shared printers. Which post-change observation is the strongest acceptance evidence?

  1. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains
  2. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  3. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  4. DHCP broadcasts reach the approved remote server through relay and clients receive valid leases with their intended options

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This observation tests the Static/default route and route preference requirement at a university faculty building in Boston. The expected result is that the intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains. The necessary correction is to install the correct destination prefix and reachable next hop, then validate route preference before expecting application reachability; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that a narrow static route is shadowed by a more-specific incorrect prefix on a distribution switch.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At a university faculty building in Boston, this measures a different network requirement, OSPF path metric and convergence. The case describes that a narrow static route is shadowed by a more-specific incorrect prefix on a distribution switch, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

C:

At a university faculty building in Boston, this would verify Dynamic route filtering and redistribution, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns Static/default route and route preference: the intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains.

D:

At a university faculty building in Boston, the observation may be useful for a separate DHCP relay and inter-subnet services test, but it does not establish that a narrow static route is shadowed by a more-specific incorrect prefix on a distribution switch has been resolved. The relevant check is the Static/default route and route preference outcome.

Question 531

At a utility control office in Raleigh, engineers report that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The work affects monitoring dashboards and service desk access. Which implementation choice meets this requirement without broadening access?

  1. Install the correct destination prefix and reachable next hop, then validate route preference before expecting application reachability
  2. Validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement
  3. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes
  4. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The crucial symptom at a utility control office in Raleigh is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The best response is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes. Confirm success by checking that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although this is a valid design approach for Static/default route and route preference in an appropriate case, it leaves the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states dependency untested. The observed condition at a utility control office in Raleigh is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency.

B:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, the option addresses BGP peer state and AS compatibility rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

D:

Although this is a valid design approach for OSPF path metric and convergence in an appropriate case, it leaves the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states dependency untested. The observed condition at a utility control office in Raleigh is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency.

Question 532

At a utility control office in Raleigh, engineers report that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The work affects monitoring dashboards and service desk access. Which test result most directly confirms the required behavior?

  1. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table
  2. DHCP broadcasts reach the approved remote server through relay and clients receive valid leases with their intended options
  3. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops
  4. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This observation tests the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states requirement at a utility control office in Raleigh. The expected result is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table. The necessary correction is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, this would verify DHCP relay and inter-subnet services, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

C:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, the observation may be useful for a separate BGP peer state and AS compatibility test, but it does not establish that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.

D:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, this measures a different network requirement, OSPF path metric and convergence. The case describes that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

Question 533

During a planned campus-network change at an engineering school in Copenhagen, operators discover that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The design must preserve lab networks and WLAN testing. What configuration or diagnostic step is the best next move?

  1. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes
  2. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  3. Configure DHCP relay on the correct routed client VLAN interface toward the authorized server and verify return-path reachability
  4. Validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The crucial symptom at an engineering school in Copenhagen is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The best response is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes. Confirm success by checking that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, the option addresses OSPF path metric and convergence rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

C:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, that change is aimed at DHCP relay and inter-subnet services, not at the actual fault: two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. A successful repair here must show that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

D:

Although this is a valid design approach for BGP peer state and AS compatibility in an appropriate case, it leaves the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states dependency untested. The observed condition at an engineering school in Copenhagen is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency.

Question 534

During a planned campus-network change at an engineering school in Copenhagen, operators discover that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency. The design must preserve lab networks and WLAN testing. What evidence should the engineer request after the repair?

  1. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services
  2. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  3. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  4. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This observation tests the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states requirement at an engineering school in Copenhagen. The expected result is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table. The necessary correction is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, this measures a different network requirement, VRF segmentation and routing isolation. The case describes that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

B:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, this would verify Dynamic route filtering and redistribution, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

C:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, the observation may be useful for a separate OSPF path metric and convergence test, but it does not establish that two routed distribution switches can ping each other but never form an OSPF adjacency has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.

Question 535

At a financial services campus in Zurich, engineers report that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The work affects transaction processing and secure terminals. Which change most directly addresses the stated failure?

  1. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes
  2. Install the correct destination prefix and reachable next hop, then validate route preference before expecting application reachability
  3. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  4. Assign routed interfaces and routes to their intended VRFs and use only explicitly approved cross-VRF connectivity

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The crucial symptom at a financial services campus in Zurich is that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The best response is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes. Confirm success by checking that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, that change is aimed at Static/default route and route preference, not at the actual fault: an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. A successful repair here must show that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

C:

Although this is a valid design approach for OSPF path metric and convergence in an appropriate case, it leaves the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states dependency untested. The observed condition at a financial services campus in Zurich is that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers.

D:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, the option addresses VRF segmentation and routing isolation rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Question 536

At a financial services campus in Zurich, engineers report that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The work affects transaction processing and secure terminals. Which post-change observation is the strongest acceptance evidence?

  1. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services
  2. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  3. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains
  4. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This observation tests the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states requirement at a financial services campus in Zurich. The expected result is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table. The necessary correction is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, this would verify VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

B:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, the observation may be useful for a separate OSPF path metric and convergence test, but it does not establish that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.

C:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, this measures a different network requirement, Static/default route and route preference. The case describes that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

Question 537

During a planned campus-network change at a public library in Portland, operators discover that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The design must preserve staff and visitor wireless access. Which implementation choice meets this requirement without broadening access?

  1. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  2. Assign routed interfaces and routes to their intended VRFs and use only explicitly approved cross-VRF connectivity
  3. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes
  4. Validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The crucial symptom at a public library in Portland is that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The best response is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes. Confirm success by checking that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a public library in Portland, the option addresses OSPF path metric and convergence rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

B:

At a public library in Portland, that change is aimed at VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not at the actual fault: an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. A successful repair here must show that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

D:

At a public library in Portland, the option addresses BGP peer state and AS compatibility rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Question 538

During a planned campus-network change at a public library in Portland, operators discover that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers. The design must preserve staff and visitor wireless access. Which test result most directly confirms the required behavior?

  1. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops
  2. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services
  3. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table
  4. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This observation tests the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states requirement at a public library in Portland. The expected result is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table. The necessary correction is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a public library in Portland, this would verify BGP peer state and AS compatibility, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

B:

At a public library in Portland, the observation may be useful for a separate VRF segmentation and routing isolation test, but it does not establish that an OSPF hello interval differs between otherwise compatible peers has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.

D:

At a public library in Portland, this would verify Dynamic route filtering and redistribution, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Question 539

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, engineers report that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces. The work affects clinical scheduling and bedside devices. What configuration or diagnostic step is the best next move?

  1. Configure DHCP relay on the correct routed client VLAN interface toward the authorized server and verify return-path reachability
  2. Use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries
  3. Assign routed interfaces and routes to their intended VRFs and use only explicitly approved cross-VRF connectivity
  4. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The crucial symptom at a regional hospital campus in Richmond is that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces. The best response is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes. Confirm success by checking that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, that change is aimed at DHCP relay and inter-subnet services, not at the actual fault: the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces. A successful repair here must show that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

B:

Although this is a valid design approach for Dynamic route filtering and redistribution in an appropriate case, it leaves the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states dependency untested. The observed condition at a regional hospital campus in Richmond is that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces.

C:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, the option addresses VRF segmentation and routing isolation rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

Question 540

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, engineers report that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces. The work affects clinical scheduling and bedside devices. What evidence should the engineer request after the repair?

  1. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains
  2. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table
  3. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services
  4. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This observation tests the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states requirement at a regional hospital campus in Richmond. The expected result is that the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table. The necessary correction is to align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, the observation may be useful for a separate Static/default route and route preference test, but it does not establish that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.

C:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, this would verify VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states: the expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table.

D:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, the observation may be useful for a separate BGP peer state and AS compatibility test, but it does not establish that the new routed VLAN is omitted from the switch's OSPF-enabled interfaces has been resolved. The relevant check is the OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states outcome.