File Info
| Exam | Nokia Advanced Troubleshooting |
| Number | 4A0-110 |
| File Name | Nokia.4A0-110.BrainDumps.2018-10-15.24q.vcex |
| Size | 3 MB |
| Posted | Oct 15, 2018 |
| Download | Nokia.4A0-110.BrainDumps.2018-10-15.24q.vcex |
How to open VCEX & EXAM Files?
Files with VCEX & EXAM extensions can be opened by ProfExam Simulator.
Coupon: MASTEREXAM
With discount: 20%
Demo Questions
Question 1
Two routers are physically connected to each other with ISIS configured. No ISIS adjacency can be found on both routers. Ping works fine on the local and the remote interface addresses on both routers. Review the configuration information shown below. Which of the following statements best describe the cause of the problem? Select one answer only.
- The ISIS interface level configured does not match the ISIS level capability supported on the routers
- The ISIS authentication check is enabled but there is no authentication type and password configured
- ISIS Area addresses are not configured on both routers
- L1 wide Metrics are disabled on the routers
- ISIS Circuit id does not match on Node-1 and Node-2
Correct answer: C
Question 2
L1 ISIS adjacency is up between two routers (Node-1 and Node-2) with MD5 authentication configured. During a maintenance window, an operator was planning to change one of the ISIS hello authentication key from admin to admin123. After removing the hello authentication key from Node-1 (no change on Node-2 side), the ISIS adjacency stayed up. The operator decided to fall back to the original configuration and called Alcatel for support. Which of the following statement best describe the cause of the problem? Select one answer only.
- The ISIS hello authentication key was not configured properly in the first place, that's why removing the authentication key does not impact the adjacency
- The ISIS authentication key is the same as the hello authentication key, therefore removing hello authentication key does not impact the adjacency
- The system interface is missing from the ISIS configuration, therefore ISIS is not working properly even before the change
- ISIS hello authentication key is only used for hello packet exchange. It does not affect ISIS adjacency
- ISIS hello authentication key is not used to bring up ISIS adjacency when traffic-engineering is enabled on the routers
Correct answer: B
Question 3
What are the typical RIP related issues found during troubleshooting?
- Interface filters
- Broadcast/Multicast mismatch
- Area id not match with neighbor
- Group name not match with neighbor
- Hop count too high
Correct answer: ABE
Question 4
Two direct connected routers are running RIPv2, neighbors are up but there is no route in the RIP database. Review the configuration information below.
What is the potential problem?
- System interface is not added to the RIP protocol
- No import policy is configured
- No export policy is configured
- Split-horizon has to be disabled in RIP
- Message-size has to be configured with a non-zero value
Correct answer: C
Question 5
Node A has an active BGP route 10.1.1.1 in its routing table, but the same route is not found in Node D routing table.
Which of the following configurations are required to resolve this problem?
- Add Interface X to OSPF on Node B as passive interface
- Redistribute interface address Y and Z into BGP
- ISIS Enable route-reflection on Node B
- Enable next-hop-self on Node C
- Enable route-reflection on Node C
Correct answer: AE
Question 6
The LDP session is not down between Node-1 and Node-2. Based on the following configurations, what is the cause of the problem?
- LDP targeted-session is enabled with no service configured
- OSPF adjacency is not up between Node-1 and Node-2
- Router id is not advertised by OSPF
- LDP is disabled on Node-1
- Traffic-engineering is not enabled on Node-2
Correct answer: C
Question 7
A SDP is created on Node-2 with the far end address set to Node-3. The SDP stays down on Node-2. Based on the following CLI output from Node 2, what is the caused of the problem?
- No LDP link session between Node 2 and Node 4
- No LDP link session between Node 4 and Node 3
- No LDP link session between Node 1 and Node 4
- No LDP link session between Node 3 and Node 2
- None of the above
Correct answer: B
Question 8
Based on the show display below, what should be done to further trouble the LSP problem? Choose all valid actions.
- Check all the interface filters to make sure no LDP protocol is blocked
- Check all management filters to make sure no RSVP-TE protocol is blocked
- Verify all explicit hops are reachable via IGP
- Make sure MPLS is enabled on all appropriate interfaces
- Make sure LDP is enabled on all appropriate interfaces
Correct answer: BCD
Question 9
Based on the following CLI Output, why is the path toPod3-loose down?
- Path toPod3-loose is down because it is secondary path with no standby configured
- Path toPod3-loose is down because there is no explicit hop specified
- Path toPod3-loose is down because CSPF is not enabled
- Path toPod3-loose is down because the destination address 0.10.1.3 is not reachable
- Path toPod3-loose is not down because the failure code is oError
Correct answer: A
Question 10
LSP toNode3 is configured on Node1, all hops configured in the lsp path and lsp destination address are reachable via IGP. Both primary and secondary LSP paths are down with failure code equal toRoute ToDestination. What is the potential cause of this problem?
- A loose hop has to be configured in path toNode3-loose
- The secondary path should not be configured as standby path
- No traffic engineering information is exchanged by the IGP protocol
- CSPF cannot be enabled with strict hop path
- MPLS should not be enabled on interface toPod3
Correct answer: C
