2V0-13.24 Dumps Questions With Valid Answers

C. The maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will adhere to a single NUMA node boundary.

Explanation: The architect’s design decisions for the VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) solution must align with the hardware specifications, the latency-sensitive nature of the applications, and VMware best practices for performance optimization. To justify the decisions limiting VMs to 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM, we need to analyze the ESXi host configuration and the implications of NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory Access) architecture, which is critical for latency-sensitive workloads.
ESXi Host Configuration:
CPU:2 sockets, each with 10 cores (20 cores total, or 40 vCPUs with hyper-threading, assuming it’s enabled).
RAM:512 GB total, divided evenly between sockets (256 GB per socket).
Each socket represents a NUMA node, with its own local memory (256 GB) and 10 cores. NUMA nodes are critical because accessing local memory is faster than accessing remote memory across nodes, which introduces latency.
Design Decisions:
Maximum 10 vCPUs per VM:Matches the number of physical cores in one socket (NUMA node).
Maximum 256 GB RAM per VM:Matches the memory capacity of one socket (NUMA node).
Latency-sensitive applications:These workloads (e.g., research applications) require minimal latency, making NUMA optimization a priority.
NUMA Overview (VMware Context):In vSphere (a core component of VCF), each physical CPU socket and its associated memory form a NUMA node. When a VM’s vCPUs and memory fit within a single NUMA node, all memory access is local, reducing latency. If a VM exceeds a NUMA node’s resources (e.g., more vCPUs or memory than one socket provides), it spans multiple nodes, requiring remote memory access, which increases latency—a concern for latency-sensitive applications. VMware’s vSphere NUMA scheduler optimizes VM placement, but the architect can enforce performance by sizing VMs appropriately.
Option Analysis:
A. The maximum resource configuration will ensure efficient use of RAM by sharing memory pages between virtual machines:This refers to Transparent Page Sharing (TPS), a vSphere feature that allows VMs to share identical memory pages, reducing RAM usage. While TPS improves efficiency, it is not directly tied to the decision to cap VMs at 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM. Moreover, TPS has minimal impact on latency-sensitive workloads, as it’s a memory-saving mechanism, not a performance optimization for latency. The VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide and vSphere documentation note that TPS is disabled by default in newer versions (post-vSphere 6.7) due to security concerns, unless explicitly enabled. This justification does not align with the latency focus or the specific resource limits, making it incorrect.
B. The maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will cross NUMA node boundaries:If VMs were designed to cross NUMA node boundaries (e.g., more than 10 vCPUs or 256 GB RAM), their vCPUs and memory would span both sockets. For example, a VM with 12 vCPUs would use cores from both sockets, and a VM with 300 GB RAM would require memory from both NUMA nodes. This introduces remote memory access, increasing latency due to inter-socket communication over the CPU interconnect (e.g., Intel QPI or AMD Infinity Fabric). For latency-sensitive applications, crossing NUMA boundaries is undesirable, as noted in the VMware vSphere Resource Management Guide. This option contradicts the goal and is incorrect.
C. The maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will adhere to a single NUMA node boundary:By limiting VMs to 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM, the architect ensures each VM fits within one NUMA node (10 cores and 256 GB per socket). This means all vCPUs and memory for a VM are allocated from the same socket, ensuring local memory access and minimizing latency. This is a critical optimization for latencysensitive workloads, as remote memory access is avoided. The vSphere NUMA scheduler will place each VM on a single node, and since the VM’s resource demands do not exceed the node’s capacity, no NUMA spanning occurs. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Design Guide and vSphere best practices recommend sizing VMs to fit within a NUMA node for performance-critical applications, making this the correct justification.
D. The maximum resource configuration will ensure each virtual machine will exclusively consume a whole CPU socket:While 10 vCPUs and 256 GB RAM match the resources of one socket, this option implies exclusive consumption, meaning no other VM could use that socket. In vSphere, multiple VMs can share a NUMA node as long as resources are available (e.g., two VMs with 5 vCPUs and 128 GB RAM each could coexist on one socket). The architect’s decision does not mandate exclusivity but rather ensures VMs fit within a node’s boundaries. Exclusivity would limit scalability (e.g., only two VMs per host), which isn’t implied by the design or required by the scenario. This option overstates the intent and is incorrect.
Conclusion: The architect should record thatthe maximum resource configuration will ensure the virtual machines will adhere to a single NUMA node boundary (C). This justification aligns with the hardware specs, optimizes for latency-sensitive workloads by avoiding remote memory access, and leverages VMware’s NUMA-aware scheduling for performance.

C. Aria Automation Lease Policy

A. Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application.

Explanation: In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, expanding an existing environment for a new application involves balancing resource needs, licensing, cost, and security. The requirements—high memory, limited licenses, approved budget, and isolation—guide the design. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application This is correct. A new VI Workload Domain (minimum 3-4 hosts, depending on vSAN HA) can be tailored to the application’s high memory needs with new hardware. Isolation is achieved by dedicating the domain to the application, separating it from existing workloads (e.g., via NSX segmentation). Limited licenses can be managed by sizing the domain to match the license count (e.g., 4 hosts if licensed for 4),and the approved budget supports this. This aligns with VCF’s Standard architecture for workload separation and scalability.
Option B: Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application into it This is incorrect. A consolidated VCF instance runs management and workloads on a single cluster (4-8 hosts), mixing the new application with management components. This violates the isolation requirement for confidential data, as management and application workloads share infrastructure. It also overcomplicates licensing and memory allocation, and a new instance exceeds the intent of “expanding” the existing environment.
Option C: Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s memory requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new application. Use host affinity rules to manage the new licensing This is incorrect. Expanding an existing VI Workload Domain cluster with matching hardware (to maintain vSAN compatibility) could meet memory needs, and DRS affinity rules could pin the application to licensed hosts. However, mixing the new application with existing workloads in the same domain compromises isolation for confidential data. NSX segmentation helps, but a shared cluster increases risk, making this less secure than a dedicated domain.
Option D: Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the new application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the application This is incorrect. Upgrading the Management Domain (minimum 4 hosts) with high-memory hardware for the application is illogical—management domains host SDDC Manager, vCenter, etc., not user workloads. A new Workload Domain is feasible, but tying it to Management Domain hardware mismatches the VCF architecture (Management and VI domains have distinct roles). This misinterprets the requirement and wastes resources.
Conclusion: The architect should recommend A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application. This meets all requirements—memory, licensing (via domain sizing), budget (approved costs), and isolation (dedicated domain)—within VCF 5.2’s Standard architecture.

D. BGP peer password

Explanation: The scenario involves designing a VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) stretched cluster with L2 non-uniform connectivity, leveraging NSX (a core component of VCF) for networking. The customer’s past incident, where an attacker injected false routes into their dynamic global routing table, indicates a security vulnerability in the routing protocol. The Tier-0 gateway in NSX handles external connectivity and routing, typically using dynamic routing protocols like BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) or OSPF (Open Shortest Path First) to exchange routes with external routers. The design decision must prevent unauthorized route injection, ensuring the integrity of the routing table. Context Analysis:
Stretched Cluster with L2 Non-Uniform Connectivity: In VCF 5.2, a stretched cluster spans multiple availability zones (AZs) with L2 connectivity for workload VMs, but the Tier-0 gateway uplinks may use L3 routing to external networks. “Non-uniform” suggests varying latency or bandwidth between sites, but this does not directly impact the routing security concern.
False Routes Injection:This implies the attacker exploited a lack of authentication or filtering in the routing protocol, allowing unauthorized route advertisements to be accepted into the Tier-0 gateway’s routing table.
Tier-0 Gateway:In NSX, the Tier-0 gateway is the edge component that peers with external routers (e.g., top-of-rack switches or upstream routers) and supports dynamic routing protocols like BGP and OSPF.
Routing Security in NSX:
NSX Tier-0 gateways commonly use BGP for external connectivity due to its scalability and flexibility in multi-site deployments like stretched clusters. OSPF is also supported but is less common for external peering in VCF designs.
Route injection attacks occur when an unauthorized device advertises routes without validation, often due to missing authentication mechanisms.
Option Analysis:
A. OSPF MD5 authentication:OSPF supports MD5 authentication to secure routing updates between neighbors. Each OSPF message is hashed with a shared secret key, ensuring only trusted peers can exchange routes. This would prevent false route injection if OSPF were the protocol in use. However, in VCF stretched cluster designs, BGP is the default and recommended protocol for Tier-0 gateway uplinks to external networks, as per the VMware Cloud Foundation Design Guide. OSPF is typically used for internal NSX routing (e.g., between Tier-0 and Tier-1 gateways) rather than external peering. Without evidence that OSPF is used here, and given BGP’s prevalence in such scenarios, this option is less applicable.
B. Gateway Firewall with ECMP:The Gateway Firewall on the Tier-0 gateway filters traffic, not routes. Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) enhances bandwidth by load-balancing across multiple uplinks but does not inherently secure the routing table. While a firewall could block traffic from malicious sources, it cannot prevent the Tier-0 gateway from accepting false route advertisements in the control plane (routing protocol). Route injection occurs at the routing protocol level, not the data plane, so this option does not address theroot issue. The NSX Administration Guide confirms that firewall rules apply to packet forwarding, not route validation, making this incorrect.
C. Implicit deny for any traffic:An implicit deny rule in the Gateway Firewall blocks all traffic not explicitly allowed, enhancing security for data plane traffic. However, this does not protect the control plane—specifically, the dynamic routing protocol—from accepting false routes. Route injection happens before traffic filtering, as the routing table determines where packets are sent. The VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 documentation emphasizes that routing security requires protocol-specific measures, not just firewall rules. This option fails to prevent the described attack and is incorrect.
D. BGP peer password:BGP supports authentication via a peer password (MD5-based in NSX), where each BGP session between the Tier-0 gateway and its external peers (e.g., physical routers) uses a shared secret. This ensures that only authenticated peers can advertise routes, preventing unauthorized devices from injecting false routes into the dynamic routing table. In VCF 5.2 stretched cluster deployments, BGP is the standard protocol for Tier-0 uplinks, as it supports multi-site connectivity and ECMP for redundancy.
The NSX-T Data Center Design Guide and VCF documentation recommend BGP authentication to secure routing in such environments, directly addressing the customer’s past incident. This is the most relevant and effective design decision.
Conclusion: The architect should chooseBGP peer password (D)as the design decision for the Tier-0 gateway. This secures the BGP routing protocol—widely used in VCF stretched clusters—against false route injection by requiring authentication, aligning with the scenario’s security requirements and NSX best practices.

A. Availability

Explanation: In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, design qualities (non-functional requirements) categorizehowthe system operates. The network team’s requirements focus on redundancy and routing diversity, which the architect must classify. Let’s evaluate:
Option A: Availability
This is correct. Availability ensures the solution remains operational and accessible. “N+N redundancy” (e.g., dual active components where N failures are tolerated by N spares) for physical networking components eliminates single points of failure, ensuring continuous network uptime. “Diversely routed inter-datacenter links” prevents outages from a single path failure, enhancing availability across sites. In VCF, these align with high-availability network design (e.g., NSX Edge uplink redundancy), makingavailabilitythe proper classification.
Option B: Performance
Performance addresses speed, throughput, or latency (e.g., “10 Gbps links”). Redundancy and diverse routing might indirectly support performance by avoiding bottlenecks, but the primary intent is uptime, not speed. This doesn’t fit the stated requirements’ focus.
Option C: Recoverability
Recoverability focuses on restoring service after a failure (e.g., backups, failover time). N+N redundancy and diverse routingpreventdowntime rather than recover from it. While related, the requirements emphasize proactive uptime (availability) over post-failure recovery, making this incorrect.
Option D: Manageability
Manageability concerns ease of administration (e.g., monitoring, configuration). Redundancy and routing diversity are infrastructure design choices, not management processes. This quality doesn’t apply.
Conclusion: The architect should classify the requirement asAvailability (A). It ensures the VCF solution’s network remains operational, aligning with VCF 5.2’s focus on resilient design.