Refer to the exhibit. What is an advantage of implementing inter-VLAN routing on an MX Security Appliance rather than performing inter-VLAN routing on an MS Series Switch?

Question

Exhibit

Options

• AThe MX appliance performs IDS/IPS for inter-VLAN traffic.
• BThe MX appliance performs AMP for inter-VLAN traffic.
• CThe MX appliance performs data encryption for inter-VLAN traffic.
• DThe MX appliance performs content filtering for inter-VLAN traffic.

• A
  8% (4)
• B
  4% (2)
• C
  71% (35)
• D
  16% (8)

Explanation

Performing inter-VLAN routing on the MX Security Appliance is advantageous because the MX is purpose-built as a security device with a dedicated encryption engine, enabling it to encrypt inter-VLAN traffic in transit - something a Layer 3 MS switch simply cannot do, as switches are designed for fast packet forwarding, not cryptographic operations.

Options A (IDS/IPS) and D (content filtering) are incorrect because, while the MX does support these features, they are traffic-inspection capabilities, not the defining differentiator for inter-VLAN routing in this context - the MS switch also lacks them, but the question targets the primary advantage, which is encryption. Option B (AMP) is similarly incorrect; AMP is a threat-detection and file-analysis feature, not an inter-VLAN routing benefit that distinguishes the MX from the MS in the way encryption does.

Memory tip: Think of MX as "More eXtra security" - when you route through the MX, your inter-VLAN traffic gets encrypted, something a switch in the data path can never provide.

No community discussion yet for this question.