Which one of the following design approaches or mechanisms would you suggest an organization using the routed access design model would need to deploy path isolation?

Question

Options

• AConfigure Layer 2 VLANs per virtual network at the access layer and configure a VRF per VLAN
• BUse GRE tunneling per virtual network. The tunnels should be built between the distribution
• CConfigure MPLS at the core and VRFs at the distribution layer.
• DConfigure Layer 2 VLANs per virtual network at the access layer and map each VLAN to a VRF at

• A
  7% (4)
• B
  20% (11)
• C
  44% (24)
• D
  28% (15)

Explanation

In a routed access design, routing occurs at the access layer itself, so Layer 2 VLAN-based approaches (Options A and D) are not aligned with the model - the access layer is not performing Layer 2 switching between distribution switches. GRE tunneling (Option B) is possible but adds overhead and complexity without leveraging the strengths of a routed network. Option C - deploying MPLS at the core with VRFs at the distribution layer - is the natural fit for path isolation in a routed campus. MPLS provides the transport fabric, and VRFs logically separate routing tables per virtual network (tenant/department) at the distribution layer, achieving clean path isolation without requiring Layer 2 extension.

No community discussion yet for this question.