2V0-13.24 Exam Dumps - VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architect Exam

In VCF, the logical design documents how design decisions align with requirements, often through justifications, assumptions, or implications. Here, adding a new cluster within the management domain for dedicated management tooling workloads requires a rationale in the logical design. Option A, a justification that the separate cluster enhances "flexibility for manageability and connectivity," aligns with VCF’s principles of workload segregation and operational efficiency. It explains why the decisionwas made—improving management tooling’s flexibility—without assuming unstated outcomes (like B’s "complete isolation," which isn’t supported by the scenario) or merely stating effects (C and D). The management domain in VCF 5.2 can host additional clusters for such purposes, and this justification ties directly to the requirement for dedicated capacity.

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) architecture, requirements are categorized as Business or Technical based on their focus. Technical requirements specify measurable system capabilities or constraints, directly influencing design decisions for infrastructure components like compute, storage, or networking. Business requirements, conversely, focus on organizational goals or outcomes that IT supports. Option B, "The system must support 5,000 concurrent users," is a technical requirement because it defines a specific system capacity metric (concurrent users), which directly impacts scalability and resource allocation in VCF design, such as the sizing of workload domains or NSX configurations. Option A, "Reduce system processing time for service requests by 25%," could be technical but is often a derivative of a business goal (efficiency), making it less explicitly technical in this context. Options C and D, focusing on customer satisfaction and market reach, are clearly business-oriented, tied to organizational outcomes rather than system specifications.

NSX Federation in VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2 extends networking and security across multiple VCF instances (e.g., across data centers) using a leaf-spine underlay network. The architect must recommend a physical network design that supports this. Let’s evaluate:

Option A: Use a physical network that is configured for EIGRP routing adjacency

Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol (EIGRP) is a Cisco-proprietary routing protocol. NSX Federation requires a Layer 3 underlay with dynamic routing (e.g., BGP, OSPF), but EIGRP isn’t a VMware-recommended standard for NSX leaf-spine designs. BGP is preferred for its scalability and interoperability in NSX-T 3.2 (used in VCF 5.2). This option is not optimal.

Option B: Layer 3 device that supports OSPF

Open Shortest Path First (OSPF) is a supported routing protocol for NSX underlays, alongside BGP. A Layer 3 device with OSPF could work in a leaf-spine topology, but VMware documentation emphasizes BGP as the primary choice for NSX Federation due to its robustness in multi-site scenarios. OSPF is valid but not the strongest recommendation for Federation-specific designs.

Option C: Ensure that the latency between VMware Cloud Foundation instances that are connected in an NSX Federation is less than 1500 ms

NSX Federation requires low latency between sites for control plane consistency (Global Manager to Local Managers). The maximum supported latency is 150 ms (not 1500 ms), per VMware specs. 1500 ms (1.5 seconds) is far too high and would disrupt Federation operations, making this incorrect.

Option D: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances

This is correct. NSX Federation relies on NSX-T overlay traffic (Geneve encapsulation) across sites, which benefits from jumbo frames (MTU ≥ 9000) to reduce fragmentation and improve performance. In a leaf-spine design, enabling jumbo frames on all physical network components (switches, routers) between VCF instances ensures efficient transport of tunneled traffic (e.g., for stretched networks). VMware strongly recommends this for NSX underlays, making it the best recommendation.

Conclusion:The architect should documentD: Jumbo frames on the components of the physical network between the VMware Cloud Foundation instances. This aligns with VCF 5.2 and NSX Federation’s leaf-spine design requirements for optimal performance and scalability.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: NSX Federation Networking)

NSX-T 3.2 Reference Design (integrated in VCF 5.2): Leaf-Spine Underlay Requirements

VMware NSX-T 3.2 Installation Guide: Jumbo Frame Recommendations

The requirement specifies that management tooling must be resilient at the component level within a single site, meaning each site’s management components (e.g., VMware Aria Suite) must withstand individual failures without relying on the other site. Let’s evaluate each option in the context of VCF 5.2 and Aria Suite:

Option A: The solution will implement an external load balancer for Aria Operations Cloud ProxiesAria Operations Cloud Proxies collect data for monitoring and don’t inherently require an external load balancer for resiliency within a site. TheVMware Aria Operations Administration Guideindicates that proxies are lightweight and typically deployed per cluster, with resiliency achieved via multiple proxies, not load balancing. This doesn’t directly address component-level resiliency for the broader Aria Suite management tools.

Option B: The solution will configure the VCF Workload domain in a stretched topology across two locationsA stretched topology extends a workload domain across two sites for site-level resiliency (e.g., disaster recovery), not component-level resiliency within a single site. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidenotes that stretched clusters rely on cross-site failover, which contradicts the requirement for single-site resilience, making this irrelevant to management tooling within one site.

Option C: The solution will deploy three Aria Automation appliances in a clustered configurationVMware Aria Automation (formerly vRealize Automation) supports a clustered deployment with three appliances (primary, replica, and failover) to ensure high availability within a site. TheVMware Aria Automation Installation Guideconfirms that this configuration provides component-level resiliency by allowing the cluster to tolerate individual appliance failures without service disruption. In VCF, Aria Automation is a key management tool, and this design meets the requirement for single-site resilience.

Option D: The solution will deploy Aria Suite Lifecycle Manager in a high availability configurationAria Suite Lifecycle Manager (LCM) manages the lifecycle of Aria components but isn’t deployed in a clustered HA configuration itself in VCF 5.2—it’s a single appliance with backup/restore options. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guidenotes that LCM resiliency is typically achieved via infrastructure HA (e.g., vSphere HA), not native clustering, making this less directly aligned with component-level resiliency compared to Aria Automation clustering.

Conclusion:Option C best meets the requirement by ensuring Aria Automation, a critical management tool, is resilient at the component level within a single site through clustering, aligning with VCF and Aria Suite best practices.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Management Component Design.

VMware Aria Automation Installation Guide(docs.vmware.com): Clustered Configuration for HA.

VMware Aria Suite Lifecycle Administration Guide(docs.vmware.com): LCM Deployment Options.