300-910 Question #33: Real Exam Question with Answer & Explanation

Question

When static routes are added to a router in a network using a CI/CD pipeline, an Ansible playbook is used to make these changes. Which steps must be added to the pipeline to validate that the changes have the intended effect on the traffic flow?

Options

• AAdd a step to run the debug ip routing command before the change, and add a step after the change to issue the no debug ip routing command.
• BAdd a step to capture the routing table before the change, and add a step after the change to capture it again. Calculate the difference between the two for review.
• CAdd a step to ping a host on each of the static routes before the change, and a step after to repeat the same checks. Calculate the difference between the two checks for review.
• DAdd a step to run the same playbook again with the debug option enabled and use grep on the log output to ensure that the commands are not applied again.

Explanation

The question asks for a validation method within a CI/CD pipeline for changes made to router static routes via Ansible, ensuring the intended effect on traffic.

Common mistakes.

• A. Using debug commands is for real-time troubleshooting and generates excessive log output, which is not suitable for automated validation within a CI/CD pipeline for verifying configuration changes.
• C. Pinging hosts tests connectivity, but it doesn't directly confirm the routing table changes or that traffic is flowing via the intended static routes. A ping could succeed via an alternative route, masking configuration errors.
• D. Rerunning the playbook with debug or checking if commands are applied again only confirms Ansible's idempotency or execution, not the functional effect on the router's traffic flow or routing table.

Concept tested. Network automation validation in CI/CD

No community discussion yet for this question.