Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Google Exam Professional Cloud Network Engineer Topic 3 Question 80 Discussion

Actual exam question for Google's Professional Cloud Network Engineer exam
Question #: 80
Topic #: 3
[All Professional Cloud Network Engineer Questions]

Your company recently migrated to Google Cloud in a Single region. You configured separate Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) networks for two departments. Department A and Department B. Department A has requested access to resources that are part Of Department Bis VPC. You need to configure the traffic from private IP addresses to flow between the VPCs using multi-NIC virtual machines (VMS) to meet security requirements Your configuration also must

* Support both TCP and UDP protocols

* Provide fully automated failover

* Include health-checks

Require minimal manual Intervention In the client VMS

Which approach should you take?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

The correct answer is D. Create an instance template and a managed instance group. Configure two separate internal TCP/UDP load balancers for each protocol (TCP/UDP), and configure the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses.

This answer is based on the following facts:

Using multi-NIC VMs as network virtual appliances (NVAs) allows you to route traffic between different VPC networks1. You can use NVAs to implement custom network policies and security requirements.

Using an instance template and a managed instance group allows you to create and manage multiple identical NVAs2. You can also use health checks and autoscaling policies to ensure high availability and reliability of your NVAs.

Using internal TCP/UDP load balancers allows you to distribute traffic from client VMs to NVAs based on the protocol and port3. You can also use health checks and failover policies to ensure that only healthy NVAs receive traffic.

Configuring the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses allows you to simplify the routing configuration and avoid manual intervention4. You do not need to create static routes or update them when NVAs are added or removed.

The other options are not correct because:

Option A is not suitable. Creating the VMs in the same zone does not provide high availability or failover. Using static routes with IP addresses as next hops requires manual intervention when NVAs are added or removed.

Option B is not optimal. Creating the VMs in different zones provides high availability, but not failover. Using static routes with instance names as next hops requires manual intervention when NVAs are added or removed.

Option C is not feasible. Creating an instance template and a managed instance group provides high availability and reliability, but using a single internal load balancer does not support both TCP and UDP protocols. You cannot define a custom static route with an internal load balancer as the next hop.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Maryann
6 months ago
I prefer the option of creating the VMS in different zones and configuring static routes with instance names as next hops. It seems like a simpler solution to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jenise
6 months ago
I see your point, Having separate internal load balancers for TCP and UDP protocols can ensure minimal manual intervention.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xenia
6 months ago
But wouldn't creating two separate internal load balancers for each protocol provide better redundancy?
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephania
6 months ago
I agree with Using a managed instance group and internal load balancer can provide automated failover and health-checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felix
7 months ago
I think the best approach is to create an Instance template and a managed instance group with an internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristian
8 months ago
Exactly. And it would also require minimal manual intervention in the client VMs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mammie
8 months ago
That sounds like a good idea. It would provide fully automated failover and include health-checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristian
8 months ago
I think the best approach would be to create an Instance template and a managed instance group with a Single internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
Elli
7 months ago
It seems like we all agree that using a single internal load balancer with custom static routes is the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Malcom
8 months ago
C) Create an Instance template and a managed instance group. Configure a single internal load balancer, and define a custom static route with the Internal TCP/UDP load balancer as the next hop
upvoted 0 times
...
Marylyn
8 months ago
I see your point. Having separate load balancers for TCP and UDP could also be a good approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Frank
8 months ago
D) Create an instance template and a managed instance group. Configure two separate internal TCP/UDP load balancers for each protocol, and configure the client VMs to use the internal load balancers' virtual IP addresses.
upvoted 0 times
...
Levi
8 months ago
That sounds like a good idea. It would provide automated failover and health checks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Katy
8 months ago
C) Create an Instance template and a managed instance group. Configure a single internal load balancer, and define a custom static route with the Internal TCP/UDP load balancer as the next hop
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77