A customer currently has a three-tier architecture in which aggregation switches are the default gateways. Pairs of aggregation switches use VRRP. You are migrating to an L2 two-tier architecture in…

Question

Options

• AUse a DHCP server to assign servers new gateway IP addresses, which are configured on the
• BConfigure VSX active gateway on the new core switches using the current default gateway IP
• CAdd the core switches to the aggregation switches' VRRP groups and use VRRP to fail over to the
• DConfigure VSX active gateway on the new core switches using a new default gateway IP address

• A
  4% (1)
• B
  25% (7)
• C
  61% (17)
• D
  11% (3)

Explanation

Option C is correct because VRRP is specifically designed to allow multiple devices to participate in the same virtual router group, making it the ideal tool for a gradual, non-disruptive migration - you add the core switches to the existing VRRP groups with a higher priority, VRRP elects them as the new master, and endpoints never need their gateway IP updated because the virtual IP remains unchanged throughout.

Why the distractors fail:

• A requires all servers (especially those with static IPs) to be reconfigured with a new gateway address, causing disruption and potential downtime during the transition window.
• B configuring VSX active gateway on the core switches with the same IP while VRRP is still active on the aggregation switches creates an IP conflict - there's no clean handoff mechanism between the two protocols.
• D is doubly wrong: it uses VSX (a different protocol from what's in place) and a new IP, meaning every endpoint must be manually reconfigured - the most disruptive option of all.

Memory tip: When you see "migration" + "existing VRRP" on an exam, the right answer almost always keeps the same virtual IP and expands the VRRP group rather than replacing the protocol or changing addresses - think "join, then take over" instead of "rip and replace."

No community discussion yet for this question.