JN0-343 · Question #434
You have a device that is sending a malicious packet to other devices in your Layer 2 network. You are asked to ensure that packets sent from this device are not allowed to enter your network. You…
The correct answer is D. The count term is implicitly accepting the traffic. See the full explanation below for the reasoning.
Question
You have a device that is sending a malicious packet to other devices in your Layer 2 network. You are asked to ensure that packets sent from this device are not allowed to enter your network. You must also keep track of the number of packets that are being received. The device's IP address is 10.100.0.254. You have created and applied the firewall filter shown in the exhibit to the correct port. However, traffic is still being forwarded into the network. {master:0}[edit] user@switch# show firewall family ethernet-switching { filter block-traffic { term count { from { source-address { 10.100.0.254/32; } } then count blocked-subnet; } term reject-traffic { from { source-address { 10.100.0.254/32; } } then discard; } term accept-rest { then accept; } } } What is causing the problem?
Options
- AThe reject-traffic term must be placed before the count term.
- BThe filter family is incorrect for a port based filter.
- CLayer 2 firewall filters do not have visibility to the Layer 3 header information.
- DThe count term is implicitly accepting the traffic.
How the community answered
(57 responses)- A7% (4)
- B16% (9)
- C4% (2)
- D74% (42)
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.