You are proposing new CX 8360 VSX switches to replace a customer's existing core switches. The customer is concerned about the possibility of a split-brain scenario between the VSX pair. How is the…

Question

Options

• AThe VSX pair is out-of-sync.
• BThe VSX pair nodes are still forwarding traffic.
• CThe VSX LAGs are in a degraded state.
• DThe VSX pair is not at risk.

• A
  5% (2)
• B
  13% (5)
• C
  8% (3)
• D
  75% (30)

Explanation

Option D is correct because the keepalive link is specifically designed to prevent split-brain: when the ISL fails but keepalive remains up, each peer knows the other is still alive, so the secondary node gracefully disables its VSX LAGs rather than competing for control - the system handles the failure in a controlled, coordinated way with no split-brain risk.

Option A is wrong because "out-of-sync" implies an uncontrolled divergence; the keepalive ensures the peers are aware of each other's state and the failure is managed predictably. Option B is wrong because when the ISL is down with keepalive up, the secondary peer disables its VSX LAGs to yield to the primary, meaning both nodes are not forwarding VSX traffic normally. Option C is wrong as a standalone answer because while the secondary's VSX LAGs do go down, framing this as merely "degraded" misses the key point - it's an intentional protective action, not a symptom of risk.

Memory tip: Think of the keepalive as a "sanity check" - as long as both peers can hear each other's heartbeat, neither will have an identity crisis and grab control. No keepalive = split-brain risk; keepalive up = no risk, just a controlled failover.

No community discussion yet for this question.