Which of the following descriptions about firewall session persistence is incorrect?

Question

Options

• AThis function supports use in conjunction with the global routing strategy
• BIf this function is not enabled, it may cause session re-establishment when the link is overloaded.
• CYou can use display
• DWhen this function is turned on, the traffic of both new users and original users is always

• A
  15% (6)
• B
  8% (3)
• C
  5% (2)
• D
  73% (29)

Explanation

Option D is the incorrect statement because firewall session persistence does not guarantee that traffic from both new and original users always follows the same path. Session persistence only ensures that existing sessions (already-established connections) continue through the same firewall or link - new users/sessions are still distributed according to the configured load-balancing or routing policy. The blanket claim that all traffic is "always" treated identically misrepresents the function's scope.

Why the distractors are correct (and thus not the answer):

• A is a true statement - session persistence can operate alongside global routing strategies, making them compatible.
• B is true - without session persistence, link overload can trigger traffic redistribution, forcing existing sessions onto firewalls that lack the session state, requiring re-establishment.
• C is true - vendors like Huawei provide display commands (e.g., display firewall session table) to inspect session persistence state, confirming this is a valid operational capability.

Memory tip: Think of session persistence as a "loyalty program for existing connections." It keeps current sessions loyal to their original path, but new connections still go wherever the load balancer sends them - there's no "always" when new users are involved. If an answer claims session persistence affects all traffic uniformly, that's your red flag.

No community discussion yet for this question.