人生にはいろいろな可能性があります。挑戦すれば、成功するかもしれません。H35-831試験は多くの人にとって重要な試験です。そして、難しいです。しかし、H35-831復習教材を利用すれば、ずべてのことは簡単になります。つまり、H35-831試験をパスしたい場合、H35-831復習教材は不可欠です。
| Section | Weight | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Topic 1: IGP Advanced Technologies | 15% | - OSPF and IS-IS Advanced Features
|
| Topic 2: BGP Advanced Technologies | 20% | - Carrier-Grade BGP
|
| Topic 3: Network Service Technologies | 10% | - Carrier Services
|
| Topic 4: Network Automation and SDN | 5% | - Automation Technologies
|
| Topic 5: Carrier IP Network Architecture | 10% | - Carrier Network Evolution
|
| Topic 6: IPv6 Technologies | 8% | - IPv6 Deployment
|
| Topic 7: Network Operation and Maintenance | 5% | - Monitoring and Troubleshooting
|
| Topic 8: MPLS and Segment Routing | 20% | - Carrier Transport Technologies
|
| Topic 9: Network Reliability and Protection | 7% | - High Availability Design
|
H35-831有用なテストガイド資料は、最も重要な情報を最も簡単な方法でクライアントに提示するので、H35-831有用なテストガイドを学習するための時間とエネルギーはほとんど必要ありません。クライアントは、テストの学習と準備に20〜30時間しかかかりません。仕事や学習などで忙しい人にとっては、これは良いニュースです。なぜなら、テストの準備に十分な時間がないことを心配する必要がなく、主なことをゆっくりとできるからです。 H35-831学習実践ガイドをご覧ください。ですから、H35-831試験の教材の大きな利点であり、クライアントにとって非常に便利です。
質問 # 33
The topology shown is a typical transport-network access-layer structure. Each core-network device is dual- homed to two CEs, and the CEs and PEs are interconnected in a square-loop topology. The access layer must carry voice and signaling services. Two VPN instances must be configured on each CE to isolate voice services from signaling services and provide security and QoS. Signaling services are transmitted in active
/standby mode, while voice services are transmitted in load-balancing mode. VRRP must be enabled between the two CEs to terminate signaling flows. From the perspectives of network robustness and architectural suitability, which statements about this topology are correct?
Exhibit 60.1 - Original topology/configuration figure
Select all that apply.
正解：B、D
解説：
Huawei Reference Verification:
Huawei's square-loop carrier access design uses dual-homed CEs and redundant PEs to maintain voice and signaling service reachability during individual failures. Separate VPN instances protect service isolation and enable differentiated QoS. A CE-to-CE link must have sufficient engineered bandwidth to carry the traffic diverted to it during failure conditions; a conservative recommendation is capacity at least as large as the relevant CE-PE interconnection. Higher-volume media services can be mapped to GE and lower-volume signaling services to FE in the intended equipment layout. GE and FE ports cannot simply be mixed in one conventional Eth-Trunk, and choosing GE rather than POS for every CE-PE connection is not an unconditional rule. Thus C and D are the intended topology choices.
Technical Deep Dive:
C and D are the intended answers. The topology has two CEs connected to redundant PEs, with a square-loop design and separate voice/media and signaling VPN instances. VRRP provides active/standby gateway behavior for the signaling service, while voice media can use load-balanced forwarding according to service design. During a CE-PE failure the surviving CE-to-CE connection may carry diverted traffic; the inter-CE link should be sized to the expected failure-state traffic, and engineering it to at least the CE-PE bandwidth is a conservative design objective. GE has higher capacity and is suitable for voice/media concentration, while FE may suffice for the smaller signaling load. Option A incorrectly presents GE-only CE-PE transport as mandatory; POS may also carry routed transport services when appropriate. Option B incorrectly proposes mixing GE and FE links as Eth-Trunk members despite compatibility and rate requirements. QoS priorities and bandwidth reservations must also preserve low latency and low jitter for real-time services. Neither C nor D is a universal physical law: capacity and interface rates should match measured worst-case failure traffic and service requirements.
質問 # 34
The new metro network is anticipated to converge fixed and mobile networks. In this type of network, every device must process services and forward data.
正解：A
解説：
Huawei Reference Verification:
Huawei CloudMetro differentiates network-service functions from the underlying physical forwarding infrastructure. Centralized service and resource management can coexist with distributed forwarding elements. The cloud-based BNG architecture demonstrates this specifically: the vBRAS control plane coordinates subscriber sessions, authentication-related procedures, and service policies, while vBRAS user- plane devices execute high-speed packet forwarding. Thus, sharing one fixed-mobile transport infrastructure does not imply that every intermediate network element must perform subscriber service processing. The architecture assigns distinct responsibilities to control, service-edge, and transit forwarding components.
Technical Deep Dive:
The statement is FALSE. Fixed-mobile convergence requires a coordinated network, not identical service functionality in every router. Service-edge devices including MSEs and BNGs may terminate subscribers, allocate addresses, enforce policies, or maintain customer VPN state. Transit devices primarily carry traffic between access, aggregation, and backbone nodes. An MPLS P router can switch labels without hosting customer VPN routing tables. Likewise, an IPv6 transit router can forward an SRv6 packet by its IPv6 destination without executing the SID's endpoint service behavior. CUPS further separates control-plane subscriber management from data-plane forwarding. Routing CPUs calculate state and install entries, while NP/ASIC forwarding engines conduct line-rate lookups, encapsulation, policing, and queue management.
Independent scaling of subscriber-control systems and packet-forwarding resources is one of the architecture's major advantages. Therefore, the assertion that every device must both process services and forward data is too broad.
#######################################################
質問 # 35
In an EVPN L3VPNv4-over-SRv6 BE scenario, must P routers in a carrier network also support SRv6?
正解：A
解説：
Huawei Reference Verification:
Huawei SRv6 Best Effort transports VPN services over native IPv6 reachability. An ingress PE can encapsulate the customer IPv4 packet using an outer IPv6 header whose destination identifies the remote egress service SID. Transit P routers forward the outer IPv6 packet by ordinary longest-prefix-match lookup toward the locator, without having to execute the service SID's endpoint behavior. The egress PE interprets its local SID and forwards the decapsulated customer traffic through the correct VPN instance. Therefore SRv6- capable PE endpoints are required but native SRv6 support on every P router is not mandatory.
Technical Deep Dive:
B is FALSE. An MPLS VPN transport typically requires P routers capable of swapping MPLS transport labels. SRv6 BE differs because ordinary IPv6 forwarding can carry the encapsulated service packet across the network. The ingress PE performs a customer VPN lookup, adds the outer IPv6 destination containing the egress service SID, and forwards into the IPv6 underlay. Each P router forwards according to its IPv6 FIB and need not understand End.DT4 or another egress service behavior. The egress PE receives the packet destined to its local SID, removes the appropriate transport encapsulation and performs the service VPN lookup. SRv6 support on transit routers remains useful for SRv6 TE, TI-LFA or other specialized transit behaviors but is not an inherent BE transport requirement. Underlay IPv6 reachability to the egress locator remains essential.
#######################################################
質問 # 36
In an inter-AS VPN Option C network, VPN routes are exchanged between AS100 and AS200. Which of the following statements concerning inter-AS VPN Option C are correct?
Select all that apply.
正解：A、B、C
解説：
Huawei Reference Verification:
Huawei inter-AS VPN Option C separates labeled public-network reachability from customer VPN route distribution. ASBRs exchange labeled IPv4 unicast reachability and must support MPLS forwarding on the relevant interconnection, including capability negotiation for BGP labels. VPNv4 routes can be exchanged between PEs or between route reflectors in different ASs using MP-EBGP. When the RRs peer via loopbacks and are not directly connected, EBGP multihop configuration is required. Option C does not require ASBRs to host complete VPNv4 tables or necessarily disable route-target filtering on them. Accordingly A, C and D are correct.
Technical Deep Dive:
A, C and D are correct. Option C is a scalable inter-AS MPLS L3VPN design. The ASBRs exchange labeled public IPv4 routes, providing an inter-AS transport LSP to the remote PE. MPLS must operate on the ASBR interconnection in this design and BGP labeled unicast capability must be supported. VPNv4 service routes are distributed directly among PEs or through RRs, so ASBRs need not maintain each customer's VPNv4 prefixes. RRs in separate autonomous systems may establish multihop MP-EBGP VPNv4 peering and use
`peer ebgp-max-hop` when sourced from non-directly connected addresses. Option B incorrectly describes a universally mandatory `undo policy vpn-target` command on ASBRs; route-target filtering matters where VPNv4 routes are actually maintained. The data plane processes transport labels across the inter-AS path and the egress PE performs the customer VPN lookup using its service label.
#######################################################
質問 # 37
In BGP EVPN, which of the following route types is used to advertise external routes?
正解：B
解説：
Huawei Reference Verification:
Huawei BGP EVPN defines route types to distribute distinct categories of Ethernet VPN reachability. Type 1 identifies Ethernet Auto-Discovery information, Type 2 MAC/IP bindings, Type 3 inclusive multicast information, and Type 4 Ethernet Segment information. Type 5 is the IP Prefix route and advertises IPv4/IPv6 prefixes, including external routes imported from another protocol or routing domain. RFC 9136 standardizes EVPN IP Prefix Advertisement route type 5. Therefore the correct selection for external IP-prefix reachability is B.
Technical Deep Dive:
B is correct. EVPN is an MP-BGP control plane capable of supporting Layer 2 bridging and Layer 3 service distribution over an MPLS or VXLAN transport. A remote subnet or imported external prefix does not require advertising every individual destination MAC address. Instead a Type 5 IP Prefix Advertisement announces the network prefix, attributes and associated next-hop information. A receiving PE imports it according to route-target policy, resolves the EVPN next hop and installs the forwarding entry in the correct tenant or VPN table. Type 2 MAC/IP routes mainly represent host address bindings, Type 3 supports BUM transport setup, Type 1 supports Ethernet Auto-Discovery and Type 4 Ethernet Segment information. Thus the presence of five offered route types does not make the question multi-answer: Type 5 alone is the IP-prefix route. VRP verification can use `display bgp evpn all routing-table` and the relevant VPN-instance route display.
#######################################################
質問 # 38
......
H35-831学習実践ガイドは、実際の試験を刺激する機能を強化します。クライアントは当社のソフトウェアを使用して、実際の試験を刺激し、実際のH35-831試験の速度、環境、プレッシャーに精通し、実際の試験の準備を整えることができます。仮想試験環境では、クライアントはH35-831の質問に答えるために速度を調整し、実際の戦闘能力を訓練し、実際のテストのプレッシャーに調整することができます。また、H35-831学習実践ガイドの習熟度を理解することもできます。
H35-831試験番号: https://www.shikenpass.com/H35-831-shiken.html