HP HPE Campus Access Switching Expert Written Exam HPE7-A06 Exam Dumps: Updated Questions & Answers (June 2025)

To enable DHCP Endpoint Profiling, the switch needs to forward relevant DHCP packets from the client to the ClearPass server. The most common method is configuring the switch to act as a DHCP relay agent for the ClearPass server IP address on the client VLAN's Switched Virtual Interface (SVI).

In scenarios where port access control (like 802.1X or MAC Auth) is enabled, clients might need to send DHCP requestsbeforethey are fully authenticated. To allow this while maintaining security, a pre-authentication role with limited access (specifically allowing DHCP) can be applied to the port initially.

The logical sequence based on the provided steps, assuming a pre-authentication workflow is intended, is:

Create the role:Define the pre-authentication role container and associate it with the appropriate initial VLAN if needed.

Permit DHCP in the role:Apply an Access Control List (ACL) or policy to this role that permits the necessary DHCP traffic (UDP ports 67 and 68). The step provided only mentions UDP 67, which allows the client's initial Discover/Request packets towards the server/relay. (A complete solution requires allowing return traffic on UDP 68 as well).

Apply the role:Configure the client-facing physical interface to use this pre-authentication role before the final role is assigned post-authentication.

Configure DHCP Relay:Configure the ip helper-address command on the client's VLAN SVI. This instructs the switch to forward the DHCP packets it receives from clients in that VLAN to the ClearPass server (in addition to forwarding them to the actual DHCP server). ClearPass receives these packets and extracts information for profiling.

This sequence ensures that even before full authentication, DHCP is permitted, and the necessary packets are relayed to ClearPass for profiling.

The question asks for the best practice for using Dynamic Segmentation.

Dynamic Segmentation Overview:It's an architecture that provides unified policy and segmentation for wired and wireless clients by combining role-based access control, traffic tunneling (like UBT), and overlay technologies (like VXLAN/GRE). Policies are enforced centrally, typically at an Aruba Gateway.

Analysis of Options:

A: UBT is a component, but Dynamic Segmentation encompasses more than just creating isolated networks with UBT.

B: Correctly describes the core principle: using a combination of role-based access (for definingwhogetswhatpolicy) and overlay technologies (for transporting traffic to the policy enforcement point and providing segmentation). This creates a layered security approach.

C: Incorrect. A key benefit isunifiedpolicy across both wired and wireless access.

D: LUR and DUR are role types, but how they are assigned isn't the fundamental description of Dynamic Segmentation itself.

Conclusion:Option B accurately captures the essence of Dynamic Segmentation as a best practice approach, integrating role-based policies with overlay networking for secure, unified access control.

An NAE (Network Analytics Engine) Python script designed to monitor links and update descriptions isn't storing data as planned. We need the first things to check (select three).

NAE Components & Troubleshooting:NAE involves Agents running Scripts, often triggered by Monitors observing system state (like interface status or LLDP changes). Failures can occur in any component or due to resource issues.

Initial Checks:

Script (script usage - C):Check the script itself for syntax errors, logic flaws, status, and logs (show nae script [status|log]). Ensure it's uploaded correctly and enabled.

Agent (Agent usage - B):Check the agent configured to run the script. Is it running? Are its parameters correct? Are there errors associated with the agent? (show nae agent [status|detail]). Check agent resource limits.

Monitor (monitor usage - E):If the script relies on a monitor to trigger or gather data, check the monitor's status, configuration, and associated conditions (show nae monitor [status|detail]). Is the monitor detecting the intended events?

Resources (Processor/Memory/Flash - D, F, A):General switch health is important. High CPU (D) or memory (F) usage could prevent the script/agent from running correctly. If the script is supposed to store datapersistently (e.g., write to a file or NAE database), check flash memory usage (A) or NAE database limits.

Conclusion:When troubleshooting NAE, the core components to check first are the Script itself (C), the Agent running it (B), and any Monitors it depends on (E). These cover the specific NAE elements involved. General system resources (D, F, A) are secondary checks if the core components appear configured correctly but still fail.

The question asks for a best practice when configuring Group-Based Policy (GBP). GBP simplifies policy management by assigning users/devices to roles and defining policies between these roles, often leveraging dynamic assignment from an authentication server.

GBP Concepts:Policies are typically defined based on source and destination roles. Roles can be assigned statically on the switch or dynamically via an authentication server like ClearPass.

Analysis of Options:

A & C: Policies define interactionsbetweenroles (source role to destination role). These roles can be the same (intra-role policy) or different (inter-role policy). Neither option represents a singular "best practice" for all configurations.

B: Using Static User Roles (SUR) is possible but less flexible and scalable than dynamic assignment for large or complex environments.

D: Using Downloadable User Roles (DUR) is generally considered a best practice. DUR allows roles and associated policies (including GBP attributes like GPID) to be centrally defined on an authentication server (e.g., ClearPass) and dynamically assigned to users/devices uponsuccessful authentication. This provides scalability, consistency, and easier management.  

Conclusion:Leveraging Downloadable User Roles (DUR) from a central authentication server like ClearPass is a best practice for implementing scalable and manageable Group-Based Policies.

The BGP state on a VSX pair is stuck (not 'Established') after a recent firewall change at the WAN/Internet edge, where the BGP peering likely occurs.

BGP and Firewalls:BGP establishes sessions usingTCP port 179. Firewalls located between BGP peers must explicitly permit TCP port 179 traffic bidirectionally for the peering to establish and maintain. Firewall changes are a frequent cause of broken BGP sessions.

Troubleshooting Steps After Firewall Change:The most logical first step is to verify that the firewall change did not inadvertently block TCP port 179 between the configured BGP neighbor IP addresses.

Analysis of Options:

A: Restarting routing service is disruptive and not the first step.

B: Confirming that appropriate TCP ports (specifically 179) are still allowed through the firewall directly addresses the most probable cause related to the firewall change event.

C: Restarting NAT service is likely irrelevant unless NAT is incorrectly configured for BGP peers.

D: Confirming the peer AS is a basic configuration check but less likely related to thefirewall changeevent than port blocking.

Conclusion:Given the problem occurred immediately following a firewall change, verifying that the firewall still permits TCP port 179 between the BGP peers is the most direct and likely troubleshooting step.

The question involves a client wanting to use the HPE Aruba Networking Switch Multi-Edit Software function in HPE Aruba Networking Central to manage multiple switches. The task is to identify the available option.

Analysis of Options:

Option A (Use templates and apply them to selected switches):Incorrect. Templates are used for configuration management in Central but are not part of the Multi-Edit Software function.

Option B (Apply a configuration to an interface range for selected switches):Incorrect. Multi-Edit focuses on CLI scripting, not specifically interface range configurations.

Option C (Run the same NAE scripts for selected switches):Incorrect. Network Analytics Engine (NAE) scripts are for monitoring, not configuration via Multi-Edit.

Option D:Correct. Multi-Edit Software in Central allows administrators to apply CLI scripts to multiple selected switches for configuration changes.

Why Option D is Correct:HPE Aruba Networking Central’s Multi-Edit Software feature enables administrators to create and apply CLI scripts to multiple AOS-CX switches simultaneously, streamlining configuration tasks. This is particularly useful for bulk changes, such as VLAN configurations or policy updates, across selected switches. The feature supports direct CLI input or script uploads, ensuring consistent application of commands, as per HPE Aruba Networking’s management tools. This aligns with the client’s need for efficient multi-switch management.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Connectivity (9%):Developing configurations for multiple devices based on customer requirements.

Troubleshooting (10%):Applying consistent configurations to resolve network issues.

Network Stack (4%):Analyzing solutions for network management automation.

The exhibit shows the output of show vsx status on sw-agg1. Key information includes:

Config Sync Status : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

NAE : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

HTTPS Server : sw_image_version_mismatch_error  

Primary Software Version: GL.10.09.0010  

Secondary Software Version: GL.10.11.1021  

These errors clearly indicate that the primary and secondary VSX switches are running different AOS-CX software versions. For VSX to operate correctly, including configuration synchronization and enabling features like MC-LAG interfaces, both switches in the pairmustrun the exact same software version.

Analysis of Options:

A: vsx-software-upgrade is used for upgrades but doesn't resolve the current mismatch requirement.

B: NAE errors are a symptom of the underlying version mismatch.

C: Using the same CX OS version on both primary and secondary switches is the fundamental requirement to clear the mismatch errors and achieve a stable VSX operational state.

D: While ServiceOS is part of the system, the primary requirement and error message relate to the main AOS-CX software version.

The question involves a customer experiencing performance degradation due to periodic overutilization of ToR-1 uplinks to legacy Core-1 and Core-2 switches. The proposed solution is to migrate to CX 6400 series switches, and the task is to identify which aspects of the CX 6400 platform address the issue while adhering to HPE Aruba Networking best practices.

Analysis of Options:

Option A:Incorrect. The CX 6400 does not support “multi-region design” as a feature for active forwarding pathways.

Option B:Correct. Virtual Switching Framework (VSF) on the CX 6400 allows multiple active forwarding pathways by creating a single logical switch from multiple physical switches, eliminating the need for STP in the core and reducing uplink congestion.

Option C:Incorrect. Backplane stacking does not directly enable ESXi hosts to load balance using active LACP; this is unrelated to uplink utilization.

Option D:Correct. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) allows Core-1 and Core-2 to form a single logical 802.3ad (LACP) device, enabling active-active uplinks from ToR-1 and load balancing traffic to prevent overutilization.

Why B and D are Correct:The performance degradation is caused by uplink overutilization, likely due to STP blocking redundant paths or inefficient load balancing. The CX 6400’s VSF capability combines multiple switches into a single logical device, allowing all uplinks from ToR-1 to be active without relying on STP, which often blocks redundant paths. MC-LAG further enhances this by presenting Core-1 and Core-2 as a single LACP system, enabling ToR-1 to use all uplinks actively via LACP load balancing. These features align with HPE Aruba Networking best practices for high-availability and performance in campus core deployments.

Relevance to Certification Objectives:

Network Resiliency and Virtualization (8%):Designing and troubleshooting VSF and MC-LAG for resiliency and redundancy.

Performance Optimization (6%):Analyzing and remediating uplink utilization issues.

Connectivity (9%):Applying advanced networking architectures like VSF and MC-LAG.

The correct order is:

identify

analyze

hypothesize

validate

implement

verify

This question requires arranging standard troubleshooting steps into a logical sequence. A systematic approach is crucial for effective network troubleshooting.

identify:The first step is always to clearly identify and define the problem. What are the symptoms? Who is affected? What is the scope? When did it start? Understanding the problem precisely is essential before proceeding.

analyze:Once the problem is identified, gather relevant data and analyze the situation. This involves checking logs, looking at configurations, examining network topology diagrams, checking status commands, and potentially capturing packets. This analysis helps build context around the identified issue.

hypothesize:Based on the identification and analysis, form a hypothesis (or multiple hypotheses) about the probable cause of the problem. This involves using technical knowledge and experience to theorize what might be wrong.

validate:Test the hypothesis to determine if it's correct. This step involves performing specific tests or checks designed to confirm or refute the theory. For example, if the hypothesis is a bad cable, test the cable. If it's a routing issue, check the routing table and perform trace routes. This step validates the cause before implementing a fix.

implement:Once the cause has been validated, implement the solution. This could involve replacing hardware, correcting configuration, clearing states, etc.

verify:After implementing the solution, verify that the original problem is resolved. It's also critical to check that the fix hasn't introduced any new issues. Monitor the system to ensure stability.