Hello,
if you look at the palo reference for HA Sync, you see that more things can be synced with A/P (i.e FIB,MFIB, ARP Table, MAC Table) so it is clear in Active/Active deployment full sync is beside the point....
https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/11-0/pan-os-admin/high-availability/reference-ha-synchronization
Here the question does not refer to firewall doing the load balancing, but the environment requires load balancing to allow the customer to send traffic through both firewalls.
Im guessing ADE, and not choosing B as Palo Alto explicitly dissuades configuring the firewalls to handle more traffic than one firewall is capable of handling. This would defeat the entire purpose of HA in the event of a failover, as the failover would result in network performance degradation from the newly created bottleneck.
https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/9-1/pan-os-admin/high-availability/ha-concepts/arp-load-sharing
Firewall support ARP load sharing but not the load balancing.
ABE.
"Active/active mode has faster failover and can handle peak traffic flows better than active/passive mode because both firewalls are actively processing traffic."
Source:https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/9-1/pan-os-admin/high-availability/ha-concepts/ha-modes
Correct answer is ABE
C makes no sense
D can also be done with Active-Passive HA
A is a little ambiguous since A/A HA doesn't guarantee that both fw will always be working, it just says that if one fails the other is still working, but A/P just guarantees that at least one will always be working so only A/A can achieve what A) describes
B. Is the textbook definition of why Active/active HA can be useful
E. Is one of the reasons why A/A HA can be faster.
worth noting that A/A does not load balance traffic... it can load-share
"An active/active configuration does not load-balance traffic. Although you can load-share by sending traffic to the peer, no load balancing occurs. Ways to load share sessions to both firewalls include using ECMP, multiple ISPs, and load balancers."
Active/Active— Both firewalls in the pair are active and processing traffic and work synchronously to handle session setup and session ownership. Both firewalls individually maintain session tables and routing tables and synchronize to each other. ctive/active mode is recommended if each firewall needs its own routing instances and you require full, real-time redundancy out of both firewalls all the time. Active/active mode has faster failover and can handle peak traffic flows better than active/passive mode because both firewalls are actively processing traffic.
https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-1/pan-os-admin/high-availability/ha-concepts/ha-modes
A,D,E
Yes A:Active/active mode is recommended ..if you require full, real-time redundancy out of both firewalls all the time.
Not B:An active/active configuration does not load-balance traffic. Although you can load-share by sending traffic to the peer, no load balancing occurs.
Not C: active/active mode does support Layer 2 deployment, Only L3 and Vwire
Yes E:Active/Active firewalls individually maintain session tables and routing tables and synchronize to each other.
Leaves D, left as 3rd answer
A voting comment increases the vote count for the chosen answer by one.
Upvoting a comment with a selected answer will also increase the vote count towards that answer by one.
So if you see a comment that you already agree with, you can upvote it instead of posting a new comment.
Alquicerm
Highly Voted 2 years, 2 months ago443Annny
2 weeks, 6 days agocorpguy
Most Recent 1 day, 11 hours agoTeachTrooper
1 week, 6 days ago62c930f
1 month, 3 weeks agoCarlosDV06
1 month, 3 weeks agoNSO_Blue
2 months, 1 week ago123XYZT
7 months agoguy276465281819372
7 months, 2 weeks ago0d2fdfa
7 months, 3 weeks agoThirdLevel
8 months, 1 week agojoquin0020
11 months, 2 weeks agoevilCorpBot7494
11 months, 3 weeks agoMetgatz
1 year, 1 month agodgonz
1 year, 4 months agoMerlin0o
1 year, 4 months agosov4
1 year, 5 months agoBetty2022
1 year, 5 months ago