Which two designs require virtual systems? (Choose two.)

Question

Options

• AA shared gateway interface that does not need a full administrative boundary
• BA virtual router as a replacement for an internet-facing router
• CA single physical firewall shared by different organizations, each with unique traffic control
• DA VMware NSX deployment that needs micros segmentation

• A
  11% (4)
• B
  73% (27)
• D
  16% (6)

Explanation

Virtual systems solve two core problems: replacing a dedicated physical device with a logical equivalent (B) and isolating distinct tenants on shared hardware (C). Option B requires a virtual system because a virtual router standing in for an internet-facing physical router must operate as a fully independent routing entity - that isolation is exactly what a virtual system provides. Option C is the textbook virtual system use case: when multiple organizations share one physical firewall but each needs its own policies, zones, and administrative control, virtual systems create those hard boundaries.

Why A is wrong: The question explicitly states no full administrative boundary is needed - virtual systems exist precisely to create those boundaries, so they're overkill here; shared interfaces or zones suffice.

Why D is wrong: VMware NSX handles microsegmentation natively through its own distributed firewall and software-defined networking stack - it doesn't depend on virtual systems on an external firewall to achieve that.

Memory tip: Think "VS = Virtually Separate organizations or Virtually replacing a physical device." If the scenario is about splitting one box for multiple owners, or replacing a standalone piece of hardware with a logical instance, virtual systems are the answer.

No community discussion yet for this question.