Huawei H12-891_V1.0 Actual Questions

Understanding the Telemetry Output:

Dest-addr: 192.168.56.1→The destination IP address is 192.168.56.1.✅

Dest-name: Dest1→The destination group name is Dest1.✅

Protocol: gRPC→Data push uses the gRPC protocol.✅

Vpn-name: - (empty)→No VPN encapsulation is used.❌

Incorrect Answer Explanation:

❌C. "VPN encapsulation is used for data push"→Incorrect!

The Vpn-name field isempty, indicating thatVPN encapsulation is NOT enabled for telemetry data transport.

Reference from Huawei HCIE-Datacom Documentation:

Huawei Telemetry Configuration Guide – Destination and Data Push Methods

HCIE-Datacom Study Material – gRPC and Telemetry Data Streaming

According to the displayed OSPF error statistics from the Huawei device, the key HELLO packet error shown is:

yaml

CopyEdit

2 : Netmask mismatch

This indicates that the OSPF adjacency formation is failing due to a subnet mask mismatch between the two OSPF neighbors on the corresponding interface (GigabitEthernet 0/0/0). OSPF uses the subnet mask in Hello packets to ensure that neighbors are in the same network. If the masks do not match, OSPF will not form an adjacency.

From the Huawei Official HCIE-Datacom Study Guide (Version 3.0) — under the OSPF Troubleshooting Section:

"Netmask mismatch: If the subnet mask configured on the interfaces of OSPF neighbors does not match, a 'Netmask mismatch' error occurs. OSPF requires neighbors to be on the same subnet to establish an adjacency. This is a common reason for failure in adjacency formation."

(Reference: Huawei HCIE-Datacom V3.0, OSPF Troubleshooting Chapter, Section 4.2 – OSPF Hello and Adjacency Establishment Issues)

Thus, among the given options:

A. Area type inconsistency would result in an area ID mismatch error, not netmask.

B. Authentication mismatch would show a bad authentication key or type error.

D. Hello interval mismatches would trigger a Hello timer mismatch error.

Only C. The IP address masks of the interfaces are inconsistent directly matches the actual error observed: Netmask mismatch.

To analyze this question, let's break down the key concepts and the given LSDB (Link State Database) information from the figure:

Understanding the LSDB Output:

The output shows the OSPF LSDB on R2 with Router ID 10.1.123.2.

Area 0.0.0.0 (Area 0) is displayed along with several Link State Advertisements (LSAs) including Router LSAs, Network LSAs, and Summary LSAs.

Area 0.0.0.1 (Area 1) also displays Router LSAs and a Type 7 LSA (NSSA LSA) with Link-State ID 0.0.0.0.

An External LSA (Type 5) with Link-State ID 0.0.0.0 and AdvRouter 10.1.123.2 is also present.

Analysis of Each Option:

Option A: Area 1 is an NSSA.

Correct.

The presence of a Type 7 LSA (NSSA LSA) in the database indicates that Area 1 is configured as an NSSA (Not-So-Stubby Area).

NSSA allows the injection of Type 7 LSAs for external routes while blocking Type 5 LSAs from entering the area.

Option B: R2 translates Type 7 default route into Type 5 default route.

Correct.

In an NSSA, if an ABR (like R2) has the NSSA ASBR capability, it will convert Type 7 LSAs to Type 5 LSAs before injecting them into the backbone area (Area 0).

In the LSDB, we see both a Type 7 LSA (NSSA) and a corresponding Type 5 External LSA, confirming that R2 performs this translation.

Option C: R2 advertises the default route in the OSPF process.

Incorrect.

There is no indication that R2 itself is originating the default route.

The Type 7 LSA in Area 1 and the Type 5 LSA in Area 0 only indicate translation from another source, not R2 advertising it directly.

Option D: Area 1 does not have Type 3 LSAs. The possible cause is that R2 filters Type 3 LSAs in the outbound direction of Area 1.

Incorrect.

In an NSSA area, Type 3 LSAs (Inter-Area Prefix LSAs) are typically not generated for external routes.

The absence of Type 3 LSAs in Area 1 is due to the nature of NSSA itself rather than any filtering configured on R2.