試験の準備方法-一番優秀なF5CAB3最新テスト試験-更新するF5CAB3資格復習テキスト国際的に認められているF5のF5CAB3認定は、特定の分野の知識を十分に活用し、能力を大幅に発揮できることを意味するのは当然です。ワークロードに圧倒され、息を吸うことができない場合、F5CAB3準備トレントを選択してみませんか？私たちは、最も信頼性が高く正確な試験資料をお客様に提供することに特化しており、お客様が満足のいくスコアを達成することで試験に合格できるよう支援しています。 F5CAB3練習教材を使用すると、F5CAB3試験は簡単になります。 F5 BIG-IP Administration Data Plane Configuration 認定 F5CAB3 試験問題 (Q37-Q42):質問 # 37
All pool members are online. All other virtual server settings are at default.
What might alter the load balancing behavior? (Choose one answer)
A. Adding a persistence profile
B. Enabling SNAT automap
C. Enabling a fallback host in the HTTP profile
D. Adding a OneConnect profile
正解：A
解説：
By default, BIG-IP load balancing algorithms (such as Round Robin) distribute connections evenly across all available pool members. However, persistence profiles override normal load balancing decisions by forcing subsequent connections from a client to be sent to the same pool member.
According to the BIG-IP Administration: Data Plane Configuration documentation:
Persistence creates a client-to-server mapping that is honored before load balancing algorithms are applied.
When persistence is enabled, BIG-IP may repeatedly select the same pool member even if others are available.
This directly alters load balancing behavior.
Why the other options are incorrect:
A . Adding a OneConnect profile
OneConnect optimizes server-side TCP connections but does not change which pool member is selected.
B . Enabling SNAT automap
SNAT affects source address translation, not pool member selection.
C . Enabling a fallback host in the HTTP profile
A fallback host is only used when no pool members are available.
Correct Resolution:
Adding a persistence profile alters load balancing behavior by maintaining client affinity to a specific pool member.
質問 # 38
A BIG-IP Administrator configures a Virtual Server to load balance traffic between 50 webservers for an ecommerce website. Traffic is being load balanced using the Least Connections (node) method. The webserver administrators report that customers are losing the contents from their shopping carts and are unable to complete their orders. What should the BIG-IP Administrator do to resolve the issue?
A. Change Default Persistence Profile setting to sip_info
B. Change Load Balancing method to Ratio (member)
C. Change Load Balancing method to Ratio (node)
D. Change Default Persistence Profile setting to cookie
正解：D
解説：
The issue of "lost shopping carts" in an ecommerce environment is a classic symptom of a missing or improperly configured Persistence Profile. In modern web applications, session data-such as items added to a cart-is often stored locally on the specific web server that initially handled the user's request. If the BIG-IP system load balances a user's subsequent request (like clicking "Checkout") to a different server among the 50 webservers, the new server will not have the session data, and the user will appear to have an empty cart.
While Least Connections (node) is an efficient load balancing algorithm, it makes a new decision for every connection unless persistence is enabled. To resolve this, the administrator must implement a persistence mechanism. HTTP Cookie Persistence (Option A) is the industry standard for web applications. By assigning a cookie persistence profile to the Virtual Server, the BIG-IP inserts a unique cookie into the HTTP response.
When the user's browser returns that cookie in future requests, the BIG-IP identifies the specific server that handled the first request and consistently directs the user back to that same server for the duration of their session.
Sip_info (Option B) is a persistence method for VOIP traffic and is not applicable to web traffic. Ratio load balancing (Options C and D) merely changes the distribution frequency but still does not guarantee that a specific user will stay on the same server across multiple requests. Therefore, adding a cookie persistence profile is the direct procedural fix to maintain session state and ensure ecommerce functionality.
質問 # 39
A Standard Virtual Server for a web application is configured with Automap for the Source Address Translation option. The original source address of the client must be known by the backend servers. What should the BIG-IP Administrator configure to meet this requirement?
A. An HTTP Transparent profile
B. A SNAT Pool with the client IP
C. An HTTP profile to insert the X-Forward-For header
D. The Virtual Server type as Performance (HTTP)
正解：C
解説：
SNAT Automap is a common configuration that replaces the client's original source IP address with one of the BIG-IP's self IP addresses. This ensures that the backend servers send return traffic back through the BIG- IP, which is necessary for the ADC to process the traffic correctly. However, a side effect of SNAT is that the backend servers only see the BIG-IP's IP in their logs, losing visibility into the true identity of the client.
To resolve this while still using SNAT for routing purposes, the administrator must configure the BIG-IP to
"pass" the client's IP address at the application layer. This is achieved by using an HTTP Profile with the Insert X-Forwarded-For setting enabled. When this profile is applied to the Virtual Server, the BIG-IP intercepts the HTTP request, adds a header (X-Forwarded-For) containing the client's original IP, and then forwards the modified request to the server. The backend web server can then be configured to read this header and log the original client IP instead of the BIG-IP's SNAT address.
Other options are incorrect for this requirement. Performance (HTTP) (Option A) is a virtual server type optimized for speed but often lacks the full Layer 7 header manipulation capabilities of a Standard Virtual Server. SNAT Pool with the client IP (Option C) is technically impossible as SNAT pools use static, pre- defined IPs. There is no such thing as an HTTP Transparent profile (Option D) in standard BIG-IP administration for this purpose. The X-Forwarded-For header insertion within the HTTP profile is the standard procedural method for maintaining client visibility in SNAT-enabled environments.
質問 # 40
A virtual server is configured to offload SSL from a pool of backend servers. When users connect to the virtual server, they successfully establish an SSL connection but no content is displayed. A packet trace performed on the server shows that the server receives and responds to the request. What should a BIG-IP Administrator do to resolve the problem?
A. disable Server SSL profile
B. disable SNAT
C. enable SNAT
D. enable Server SSL profile
正解：C
解説：
This scenario describes a classic routing issue often encountered during SSL offload deployments. The fact that an SSL connection is established indicates the Client SSL profile is working correctly. The packet trace showing the server "receives and responds" to the request is the most critical diagnostic clue.
When a BIG-IP receives traffic, it typically passes the client's original source IP address to the backend server. If the backend server's default gateway is not the BIG-IP (a common "one-arm" network topology), the server will attempt to send its response directly back to the client's IP via its own default router. The client's browser will reject this response because it expects traffic to come from the Virtual Server's IP, not the backend server's IP.
To resolve this, the administrator must enable SNAT (Source Address Translation), typically using SNAT Automap. When SNAT is enabled, the BIG-IP replaces the client's original source IP with one of its own Self IPs before forwarding the request to the server. Because the source of the packet is now the BIG-IP, the backend server is forced to send its response back to the BIG-IP. The BIG-IP then receives the response, translates it back, and delivers the content to the user. Option A is unnecessary if the servers are expecting plain-text traffic after the BIG-IP performs offload. Option D would only worsen the existing routing discrepancy.
質問 # 41
A BIG-IP Administrator creates a new Virtual Server. The end user is unable to access the page. During troubleshooting, the administrator learns that the connection between the BIG-IP system and server is NOT set up correctly. What should the administrator do to solve this issue? (Choose one answer)
A. Set Address Translation to Auto Map, configure a SNAT pool, and have pool members in the same subnet as the servers
B. Disable Address Translation
C. Set Address Translation to SNAT and have a self-IP configured in the same subnet as the servers
D. Set Address Translation to SNAT and configure a specific translation address
正解：C
解説：
The issue described is a classic symptom of asymmetric routing, which frequently occurs when the BIG-IP system and the back-end servers reside on the same subnet (often referred to as a "one-arm" deployment).
* The Routing Problem: By default, the BIG-IP system preserves the original client source IP address when forwarding traffic to a pool member. If the server is in the same subnet as the client or if the server's default gateway is not the BIG-IP, the server will attempt to send its response directly back to the client's IP address, bypassing the BIG-IP.
* Stateful Failure: Since the BIG-IP is a Full Proxy, it maintains a state table. Because the response packet never returns through the BIG-IP, the system cannot complete the three-way handshake or manage the application session, resulting in a connection failure for the user.
* The Solution (SNAT): Enabling Source Network Address Translation (SNAT) solves this by changing the source IP address of the request to an IP address owned by the BIG-IP (typically a self-IP).
* Requirement for Subnet Alignment: To ensure the server sends the response back to the BIG-IP, the translation address must be reachable. By using a self-IP configured in the same subnet as the servers, the BIG-IP ensures that the server sees the request coming from a local "neighbor." The server will then naturally send the response back to that self-IP, allowing the BIG-IP to translate the packet back and forward it to the client.
Why other options are incorrect:
* A: Disabling address translation would ensure the server-side traffic uses the client IP, making asymmetric routing inevitable in this scenario.
* B: This is technically contradictory; "Auto Map" specifically uses existing self-IPs and does not require or use a "SNAT pool" configuration.
* C: While using a specific translation address can work, it does not inherently guarantee the Layer 2
/Layer 3 reachability mentioned in the scenario as effectively as ensuring the self-IP is correctly placed in the server's subnet.