The output network requires a higher cost than the belt network. But provides a more reliable management channel.

Question

Options

• ATrue
• BFalse

• A
  76% (19)
• B
  24% (6)

Explanation

Option A is correct because these two statements represent a genuine trade-off in network design: the output network (out-of-band management network) requires dedicated, separate physical infrastructure, which inherently increases cost compared to the belt (in-band) network that reuses existing data paths. However, that separation is precisely what makes the output network's management channel more reliable - administrative access remains available even when the primary data network is congested, misconfigured, or down. This independence means operators can still reach and remediate devices during failures, which is the core value proposition of out-of-band management.

Option B is wrong because dismissing the statement ignores the well-established cost-vs-reliability trade-off: you cannot have a fully independent management channel without paying for the extra hardware and links to create it.

Memory tip: Think of it as a "backup generator" analogy - a separate generator costs more to install than tapping into your main power, but it's far more reliable when the main power fails. Out-of-band management is your network's backup generator.

No community discussion yet for this question.