Which two design options address split-brain when configuring HA? (Choose two )

Question

Options

• ASend heartbeats across the HA2 interfaces.
• BBundle multiple interfaces in an Aggregated Interface Group and assign HA2.
• CUse the heartbeat backup.
• DAdd a backup HA1 interface.

• A
  6% (1)
• B
  11% (2)
• C
  83% (15)

Explanation

Split-brain occurs when both HA peers lose contact and both promote themselves to active simultaneously - options C and D prevent this by providing redundant paths for HA1 heartbeat traffic. Option D (backup HA1 interface) adds a secondary control link so that if the primary HA1 fails, heartbeat and state sync continue uninterrupted. Option C (heartbeat backup) uses the management interface as an additional failsafe path for keepalive messages, ensuring neither peer incorrectly assumes the other is dead.

Options A and B are wrong because they both involve HA2, which is the data synchronization link (sessions, forwarding tables) - not the control/heartbeat link; redundancy on HA2 improves session continuity but does nothing to prevent split-brain. Option B additionally bundles HA2 into an Aggregated Interface Group, which is a valid throughput technique but still targets the wrong link for split-brain prevention.

Memory tip: Split-brain is a communication problem, so the fix must be on the control link (HA1). Think "1 brain = HA1" - any answer that mentions HA1 (backup interface) or its heartbeat path (heartbeat backup via mgmt) is your solution; anything touching HA2 is a distractor.

No community discussion yet for this question.