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 60

Question 590

During a planned campus-network change at a university faculty building in Boston, operators discover that a peering security change produces an authentication mismatch even though the transport path is active. The design must preserve teaching tools and shared printers. Which post-change observation is the strongest acceptance evidence?

  1. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  2. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  3. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops
  4. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This observation tests the BGP peer state and AS compatibility requirement at a university faculty building in Boston. The expected result is that the BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops. The necessary correction is to validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that a peering security change produces an authentication mismatch even though the transport path is active.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a university faculty building in Boston, the observation may be useful for a separate OSPF path metric and convergence test, but it does not establish that a peering security change produces an authentication mismatch even though the transport path is active has been resolved. The relevant check is the BGP peer state and AS compatibility outcome.

B:

At a university faculty building in Boston, this measures a different network requirement, Dynamic route filtering and redistribution. The case describes that a peering security change produces an authentication mismatch even though the transport path is active, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

D:

At a university faculty building in Boston, the observation may be useful for a separate OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states test, but it does not establish that a peering security change produces an authentication mismatch even though the transport path is active has been resolved. The relevant check is the BGP peer state and AS compatibility outcome.

Question 591

At a utility control office in Raleigh, engineers report that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The work affects monitoring dashboards and service desk access. Which implementation choice meets this requirement without broadening access?

  1. Use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries
  2. Install the correct destination prefix and reachable next hop, then validate route preference before expecting application reachability
  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

A:

The crucial symptom at a utility control office in Raleigh is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The best response is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries. Confirm success by checking that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, the option addresses Static/default route and route preference rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

C:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, that change is aimed at VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not at the actual fault: redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

D:

Although this is a valid design approach for OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states in an appropriate case, it leaves the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution dependency untested. The observed condition at a utility control office in Raleigh is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network.

Question 592

At a utility control office in Raleigh, engineers report that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The work affects monitoring dashboards and service desk access. Which test result most directly confirms the required behavior?

  1. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  2. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services
  3. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops
  4. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This observation tests the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution requirement at a utility control office in Raleigh. The expected result is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes. The necessary correction is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, this measures a different network requirement, OSPF path metric and convergence. The case describes that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

B:

At a utility control office in Raleigh, this would verify VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns Dynamic route filtering and redistribution: neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

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 redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.

Question 593

During a planned campus-network change at an engineering school in Copenhagen, operators discover that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The design must preserve lab networks and WLAN testing. 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. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  4. Validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The crucial symptom at an engineering school in Copenhagen is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The best response is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries. Confirm success by checking that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although this is a valid design approach for DHCP relay and inter-subnet services in an appropriate case, it leaves the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution dependency untested. The observed condition at an engineering school in Copenhagen is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network.

C:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, that change is aimed at OSPF path metric and convergence, not at the actual fault: redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

D:

Although this is a valid design approach for BGP peer state and AS compatibility in an appropriate case, it leaves the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution dependency untested. The observed condition at an engineering school in Copenhagen is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network.

Question 594

During a planned campus-network change at an engineering school in Copenhagen, operators discover that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network. The design must preserve lab networks and WLAN testing. What evidence should the engineer request after the repair?

  1. The selected OSPF path reflects approved cost policy and a controlled link failure converges to the intended backup
  2. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  3. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops
  4. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This observation tests the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution requirement at an engineering school in Copenhagen. The expected result is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes. The necessary correction is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, this measures a different network requirement, OSPF path metric and convergence. The case describes that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

C:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, the observation may be useful for a separate BGP peer state and AS compatibility test, but it does not establish that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.

D:

At an engineering school in Copenhagen, this measures a different network requirement, Static/default route and route preference. The case describes that redistributing every connected subnet into OSPF accidentally advertises the management network, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

Question 595

At a financial services campus in Zurich, engineers report that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. The work affects transaction processing and secure terminals. Which change most directly addresses the stated failure?

  1. Validate BGP neighbor reachability and the local/remote AS relationship, then confirm authorized prefix advertisement
  2. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  3. Assign routed interfaces and routes to their intended VRFs and use only explicitly approved cross-VRF connectivity
  4. Use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The crucial symptom at a financial services campus in Zurich is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. The best response is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries. Confirm success by checking that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, the option addresses BGP peer state and AS compatibility rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

B:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, that change is aimed at OSPF path metric and convergence, not at the actual fault: a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

C:

Although this is a valid design approach for VRF segmentation and routing isolation in an appropriate case, it leaves the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution dependency untested. The observed condition at a financial services campus in Zurich is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream.

Question 596

At a financial services campus in Zurich, engineers report that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. 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. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  4. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This observation tests the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution requirement at a financial services campus in Zurich. The expected result is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes. The necessary correction is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream.

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 Dynamic route filtering and redistribution: neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

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 a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.

D:

At a financial services campus in Zurich, this would verify Static/default route and route preference, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns Dynamic route filtering and redistribution: neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Question 597

During a planned campus-network change at a public library in Portland, operators discover that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. The design must preserve staff and visitor wireless access. Which implementation choice meets this requirement without broadening access?

  1. Configure DHCP relay on the correct routed client VLAN interface toward the authorized server and verify return-path reachability
  2. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements
  3. Align OSPF participation, area, reachability and neighbor authentication before troubleshooting downstream learned routes
  4. Use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The crucial symptom at a public library in Portland is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. The best response is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries. Confirm success by checking that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a public library in Portland, the option addresses DHCP relay and inter-subnet services rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

B:

At a public library in Portland, that change is aimed at OSPF path metric and convergence, not at the actual fault: a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

C:

Although this is a valid design approach for OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states in an appropriate case, it leaves the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution dependency untested. The observed condition at a public library in Portland is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream.

Question 598

During a planned campus-network change at a public library in Portland, operators discover that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream. The design must preserve staff and visitor wireless access. Which test result most directly confirms the required behavior?

  1. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  2. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table
  3. The intended destination resolves through the authorized next hop and no unwanted default-route black hole remains
  4. Each VRF resolves only its authorized prefixes, with controlled tests proving isolation and allowed shared services

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This observation tests the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution requirement at a public library in Portland. The expected result is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes. The necessary correction is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream.

Incorrect Answers

B:

At a public library in Portland, the observation may be useful for a separate OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states test, but it does not establish that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.

C:

At a public library in Portland, this measures a different network requirement, Static/default route and route preference. The case describes that a migration route policy rejects the one application prefix that must be learned downstream, so accepting this result would leave the primary fault without direct verification.

D:

At a public library in Portland, this would verify VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns Dynamic route filtering and redistribution: neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Question 599

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, engineers report that an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules. The work affects clinical scheduling and bedside devices. What configuration or diagnostic step is the best next move?

  1. Assign routed interfaces and routes to their intended VRFs and use only explicitly approved cross-VRF connectivity
  2. Use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries
  3. Configure DHCP relay on the correct routed client VLAN interface toward the authorized server and verify return-path reachability
  4. Verify OSPF costs and advertised prefix reachability on the intended paths, then tune metric or failover requirements

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The crucial symptom at a regional hospital campus in Richmond is that an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules. The best response is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries. Confirm success by checking that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, that change is aimed at VRF segmentation and routing isolation, not at the actual fault: an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

C:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, the option addresses DHCP relay and inter-subnet services rather than the reported issue. For the stated symptom, the expected evidence is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

D:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, that change is aimed at OSPF path metric and convergence, not at the actual fault: an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules. A successful repair here must show that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

Question 600

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, engineers report that an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules. The work affects clinical scheduling and bedside devices. What evidence should the engineer request after the repair?

  1. DHCP broadcasts reach the approved remote server through relay and clients receive valid leases with their intended options
  2. Neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes
  3. The expected neighbor reaches the required state and the authorized OSPF routes enter the routing table
  4. The BGP session establishes and only the intended network prefixes appear with accepted next hops

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This observation tests the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution requirement at a regional hospital campus in Richmond. The expected result is that neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes. The necessary correction is to use explicit route filters or redistribution policy so only authorized prefixes cross routing-domain boundaries; a saved configuration alone would not prove it is working. In this case, the observed fault is that an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules.

Incorrect Answers

A:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, the observation may be useful for a separate DHCP relay and inter-subnet services test, but it does not establish that an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.

C:

At a regional hospital campus in Richmond, this would verify OSPF neighbor prerequisites and states, not the failure reported in this scenario. The requested closure criterion instead concerns Dynamic route filtering and redistribution: neighbor route tables contain approved routes and do not receive protected management or unrelated tenant prefixes.

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 an engineer expects a prefix list with a broad mask to match all more-specific networks without checking its rules has been resolved. The relevant check is the Dynamic route filtering and redistribution outcome.