nerdexam
Cisco

300-910 · Question #33

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

The correct answer is B. Add 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.. 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.

CI/CD Pipelines

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.

How the community answered

(19 responses)
  • A
    11% (2)
  • B
    79% (15)
  • C
    5% (1)
  • D
    5% (1)

Why each option

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.

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.

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.

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.Correct

Capturing the routing table before and after the change allows for a direct comparison to verify that the static routes were added as intended and that no unintended routes were modified or removed. This provides a clear, verifiable record of the routing state.

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.

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.

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.

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

Topics

#CI/CD Pipeline#Network Automation#Configuration Validation#Routing Table

Community Discussion

No community discussion yet for this question.

Sign up to join the discussion
Full 300-910 Practice