Users are experiencing low throughput when downloading large files over a high-speed WAN connection.
Extensive packet loss was found to be an issue but CANNOT be eliminated.
Which two TCP profile settings should be modified to compensate for the packet loss in the network?
(Choose two.)

• A.proxy buffer low
• B.slow start
• C.Nagle's algorithm
• D.proxy buffer high
• E.proxy options

Comment: *

Name: *

Email: *

Verification: *

-- Exhibit -

-- Exhibit --
Refer to the exhibit.
An LTM Specialist has a virtual server set up on the LTM device as per the exhibit. The LTM Specialist receives reports of intermittent issues. Some clients are connecting fine while others are failing to connect.
The LTM Specialist does a tcpdump on the relevant interfaces, with the following results extracted:
What is causing the intermittent issues?

• A.The load balancing (LB) method is inappropriate.
• B.The default gateway is inaccessible from WS1.
• C.The pool members have been set up as an active/standby pair, with WS1 as the standby.
• D.The firewall is dropping the packets from WS1.

Comment: *

Name: *

Email: *

Verification: *

A virtual server for a set of web services is constructed on an LTM device. The LTM Specialist has created an iRule and applied this iRule to the virtual server:
when HTTP_REQUEST {
switch [HTTP::uri] {
"/ws1/ws.jsp" {
log local0. "[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to JSP Pool"
pool JSP
}
default { log local0. "[HTTP::uri]-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool"
pool NonJSP
} } } However, the iRule is NOT behaving as expected. Below is a snapshot of the log: /WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool /WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool /WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool /WS1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool /ws1/WS.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool /WS1/ws.jsp-Redirected to JSP Pool /ws1/ws.jsp-Redirected to Non-JSP Pool
What should the LTM Specialist do to resolve this?

• A.Use the followinG.switch -lc [HTTP::uri]
• B.Select the "Process Case-Insensitivity" option for the virtual server.
• C.Use the followinG.switch [string tolower [HTTP::uri]]
• D.Set the "Case Sensitivity" option of each member to "None".

Comment: *

Name: *

Email: *

Verification: *

-- Exhibit -

-- Exhibit -Refer to the exhibit. A company uses a complex piece of client software that connects to one or more virtual servers
(VS) hosted on an LTM device. The client software is experiencing issues. An LTM Specialist must
determine the cause of the problem.
The LTM Specialist is seeing a client source IP of 168.210.232.5 in the tcpdump. However, the
client source IP is actually 10.123.17.12.
Why does the IP address of 10.123.17.12 fail to appear in the tcpdump?

• A.The individual's data stream is being routed to the LTM device by a means other than the default route.
• B.The Secure Network Address Translation (SNAT) pool on the virtual server is activated.
• C.The LTM device performed NAT on the individual's IP address.
• D.Network Address Translation (NAT) has occurred in the path between the client and the LTM device.

Comment: *

Name: *

Email: *

Verification: *

-- Exhibit -

-- Exhibit -Refer to the exhibit.
An HTTP monitor always marks the nodes in the pool as down. The monitor's definition and the HTTP headers from the monitor request and response are provided.
What is the issue?

• A.The response is compressed.
• B.The send string is incorrect.
• C.The monitor timeout is too short.
• D.The monitor is NOT configured to follow the redirect.

Comment: *

Name: *

Email: *

Verification: *