The Distribution layer also facilitates redundancy through features such as link aggregation and spanning tree protocol (STP), which help prevent loops and ensure that there are alternative paths for data to travel in case of a link failure. This redundancy is vital for maintaining network uptime and performance. In contrast, the Access layer is focused on connecting end-user devices and managing local traffic, while the Core layer is designed for high-speed data transfer and interconnecting multiple Distribution layer switches. The statement regarding the Distribution layer acting as a primary point of failure is misleading, as the design should incorporate redundancy to mitigate such risks. Lastly, while the Distribution layer can provide backup capabilities, it is not solely responsible for rerouting traffic without additional configuration, as this would typically involve dynamic routing protocols and configurations that span across the entire network architecture. Thus, understanding the distinct roles of each layer in a hierarchical design is essential for effective network management and scalability, ensuring that the network can grow and adapt to changing demands while maintaining high availability and performance.

Diagrams are particularly important in complex networks where multiple protocols may be in use, as they can clarify how data flows through the network and identify potential bottlenecks or points of failure. Furthermore, industry best practices emphasize the importance of visual aids in documentation to enhance clarity and comprehension. While a summary of historical changes to routing configurations is valuable for understanding the evolution of the network, it does not provide the immediate visual context that a diagram offers. Similarly, a list of devices without context lacks the necessary detail to inform stakeholders about the network’s operational status. Lastly, including a brief overview of the organization’s mission statement is irrelevant to the technical aspects of the report and does not contribute to the understanding of the network’s routing protocols. In summary, the most critical element for ensuring the report is both informative and compliant with documentation standards is a detailed diagram. This aligns with best practices in network documentation, which advocate for clarity, visual representation, and comprehensive detail in reporting.

By using a configuration management tool, the engineer can also implement version control for configurations, rollback capabilities, and audit trails, which are essential for maintaining network integrity and compliance. This approach minimizes human error, as manual configurations can lead to inconsistencies and potential misconfigurations across devices. In contrast, manually configuring each router using CLI commands (option b) is time-consuming and prone to errors, especially in larger networks. Implementing SNMP polling (option c) is useful for monitoring but does not facilitate configuration changes effectively. Lastly, using TFTP to send configuration files (option d) lacks the robustness and error-checking capabilities provided by RESTful APIs and does not allow for real-time monitoring of the configuration status. Overall, leveraging a configuration management tool that integrates with RESTful APIs not only streamlines the configuration process but also enhances the ability to monitor and manage network devices efficiently, aligning with best practices in network automation and management.

Next, we can calculate the bandwidth allocated to each class based on their respective weights. The total available bandwidth is 1 Gbps, or 1000 Mbps. The bandwidth for each class can be calculated using the formula: \[ \text{Bandwidth for Class} = \left(\frac{\text{Weight of Class}}{\text{Total Weight}}\right) \times \text{Total Bandwidth} \] For Class 1 (weight 2): \[ \text{Bandwidth for Class 1} = \left(\frac{2}{10}\right) \times 1000 \text{ Mbps} = 200 \text{ Mbps} \] For Class 2 (weight 3): \[ \text{Bandwidth for Class 2} = \left(\frac{3}{10}\right) \times 1000 \text{ Mbps} = 300 \text{ Mbps} \] For Class 3 (weight 5): \[ \text{Bandwidth for Class 3} = \left(\frac{5}{10}\right) \times 1000 \text{ Mbps} = 500 \text{ Mbps} \] Thus, the bandwidth allocated to each class is 200 Mbps for Class 1, 300 Mbps for Class 2, and 500 Mbps for Class 3. The implementation of WFQ significantly impacts both latency and throughput. By prioritizing traffic based on weights, WFQ ensures that higher-priority traffic receives more bandwidth, which can reduce latency for critical applications. However, it may introduce some latency for lower-priority traffic as it waits for its turn to be processed. Overall, WFQ enhances throughput by efficiently utilizing available bandwidth and minimizing congestion, leading to a more predictable performance across different types of traffic. This mechanism is particularly beneficial in environments with mixed traffic types, as it balances the needs of various applications while maintaining network efficiency.

Hot Standby Router Protocol (HSRP) is a Cisco proprietary protocol that provides gateway redundancy by allowing multiple routers to work together to present the appearance of a single virtual router to the hosts on the network. In this case, if one ISP link fails, the other link can take over without any disruption to the end-users, as HSRP ensures that one router is always active while the other is in standby mode. Equal-Cost Multi-Path (ECMP) routing allows for load balancing across multiple paths that have the same cost. While this can enhance performance and resiliency, it does not inherently provide the failover capability described in the scenario, as it relies on all paths being operational. Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) is primarily used for routing between different autonomous systems on the internet and can be configured for load balancing, but it is not specifically designed for seamless failover in the context of a single corporate network’s dual-homed design. Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol (VRRP) is another redundancy protocol similar to HSRP, but it is not Cisco proprietary and is used to create a virtual router that can be shared among multiple routers. While it also provides redundancy, the specific mention of HSRP in the context of Cisco networks makes it the more appropriate choice for this scenario. Thus, the mechanism that allows for seamless failover in this dual-homed design is best described by the use of HSRP, which ensures that one router is always ready to take over in case of a failure, maintaining network availability and resiliency.

For instance, if the engineer is configuring an interface with specific IP addresses and settings, the playbook can include tasks that first apply the configuration and then use assertions to verify that the interface is up and the IP address is correctly assigned. This method aligns with best practices in network automation, where verification is as crucial as deployment. On the other hand, developing separate scripts for deployment and verification (as suggested in option b) introduces complexity and potential for errors, as it relies on the engineer to manage the execution order and handle any discrepancies manually. Using the `command` module (option c) lacks the idempotency and error-checking features that Ansible provides, leading to a less reliable automation process. Lastly, implementing a playbook that only applies configurations without verification (option d) is risky, as it leaves room for undetected errors, which could lead to network outages or misconfigurations. Thus, the best practice is to integrate both configuration deployment and state verification within the same Ansible playbook, ensuring a robust and reliable automation process that adheres to the principles of infrastructure as code.

Redistribution is the process of taking routes from one routing protocol and injecting them into another. In OSPF, this is typically done using the `redistribute` command within the OSPF configuration. If the route is not in the correct OSPF area or if redistribution has not been configured for that specific route, it will not be advertised to neighboring routers. The other options present plausible scenarios but do not directly address the core issue of route advertisement in OSPF. For instance, if the OSPF process is not enabled on the interface, the router would not participate in OSPF at all, which would lead to a different set of symptoms. Similarly, a higher administrative distance would not prevent the route from being advertised; it would simply make it less preferred than other routes. Lastly, mismatched MTU settings could prevent neighbor relationships from forming, but if the route is already in the routing table, it would not explain why it is absent from the OSPF database. Thus, understanding the nuances of OSPF configuration and the redistribution process is crucial for troubleshooting routing issues effectively.

The total weight is calculated as follows: \[ \text{Total Weight} = \text{Weight of R1} + \text{Weight of R2} = 100 + 50 = 150 \] Next, we calculate the percentage of traffic that each router will handle. For R1, the calculation is: \[ \text{Traffic Percentage for R1} = \left( \frac{\text{Weight of R1}}{\text{Total Weight}} \right) \times 100 = \left( \frac{100}{150} \right) \times 100 = 66.67\% \] For R2, the calculation is: \[ \text{Traffic Percentage for R2} = \left( \frac{\text{Weight of R2}}{\text{Total Weight}} \right) \times 100 = \left( \frac{50}{150} \right) \times 100 = 33.33\% \] Thus, R1 will handle approximately 67% of the traffic while R2 will handle approximately 33%. This distribution allows for efficient load balancing and redundancy, ensuring that if one router fails, the other can take over without significant disruption. Understanding this concept is crucial for implementing GLBP effectively, as it directly impacts network performance and reliability.

This is a crucial aspect of BGP security, as it ensures that only routers with the correct credentials can establish a session. If the MD5 password were to be incorrect or mismatched, the session would also fail, but in this scenario, the issue is specifically related to the interface mismatch. The other options present misconceptions about how MD5 authentication works in BGP. For instance, while it is true that the MD5 authentication is applied to BGP update messages, the initial TCP handshake is still subject to the same MD5 hashing process. Additionally, the MD5 password is indeed case-sensitive, meaning that any variation in the password would prevent the session from being established. Lastly, while BGP can technically operate without MD5 authentication, the question specifically addresses a scenario where MD5 is implemented, making this option irrelevant to the issue at hand. Understanding the implications of interface selection and its effect on MD5 authentication is vital for network engineers, especially in complex BGP configurations where security is paramount.

The lease time is set to 24 hours, which means that each client will hold onto their assigned IP address for this duration unless they release it earlier. After 12 hours, half of the lease time has elapsed. If all 30 clients renew their leases at the end of the 12-hour mark, they will continue to hold onto their IP addresses, and no addresses will be released back to the pool for new clients. Since the DHCP server is fully utilized with 30 clients, and all clients renew their leases, the number of available IP addresses for new clients after 12 hours will remain at 11 (41 total addresses – 30 leased addresses = 11 available addresses). Therefore, the correct answer is that there will be 11 IP addresses remaining available for new clients after 12 hours. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding DHCP lease times and client behavior in a network environment. It emphasizes the need for network administrators to carefully plan IP address allocation and lease durations to accommodate varying client demands, especially in environments with fluctuating numbers of devices.

When the client first requests an IP address at 10:00 AM, it receives an IP address with a lease that will expire 24 hours later, which would be at 10:00 AM the following day. However, the client renews its lease at 10:30 AM. According to the DHCP protocol, when a lease is renewed, the lease time is reset to the full duration specified by the server, which is again 24 hours from the time of renewal. Thus, after the renewal at 10:30 AM, the new expiration time for the lease will be 24 hours later, which calculates to 10:30 AM the next day. This renewal process is crucial in DHCP operation as it allows clients to maintain their IP addresses without interruption, provided they renew before the lease expires. The other options can be analyzed as follows: – The first option (10:00 AM the next day) reflects the original lease expiration time but does not account for the renewal. – The third option (10:30 AM the same day) incorrectly suggests that the lease would expire immediately after the renewal, which is not how DHCP operates. – The fourth option (10:00 AM the same day) also fails to consider the renewal process and its impact on the lease duration. Therefore, understanding the DHCP lease renewal process is essential for managing IP address allocation effectively in a network environment.

In contrast, using TFTP (Trivial File Transfer Protocol) for downloading configuration files lacks encryption, making it vulnerable to interception. This method does not provide any authentication mechanisms, which could lead to unauthorized devices receiving sensitive configurations. Manual configuration, while secure, is not efficient for large-scale deployments and does not leverage automation, which is critical in modern network management. Lastly, using HTTP for configuration downloads is also insecure, as it transmits data in plaintext, exposing it to potential attacks. Therefore, the most effective and secure method for provisioning the router in this scenario is through the Cisco Smart Install feature, which not only automates the process but also ensures that the configuration is securely authenticated and encrypted during transmission. This approach aligns with best practices for network security and device management, making it the optimal choice for the engineer’s requirements.

To achieve the desired allocation, the engineer should configure the explicit path to reserve 6 Gbps specifically for high-priority traffic. This ensures that the critical applications receive the necessary bandwidth without interruption. The remaining 4 Gbps can then be allocated to the dynamic path, which can handle lower-priority traffic. This configuration allows for efficient use of available resources while maintaining the performance of high-priority applications. Option b is incorrect because it reverses the roles of the explicit and dynamic paths, which could lead to insufficient bandwidth for high-priority traffic. Option c is not viable as it does not utilize the dynamic path, which is essential for adapting to changing network conditions. Lastly, option d fails to meet the requirement of reserving bandwidth for high-priority traffic, as it allocates all resources to the dynamic path. In summary, the correct configuration involves reserving 6 Gbps on the explicit path for high-priority traffic and allowing the dynamic path to utilize the remaining 4 Gbps, thereby optimizing the overall traffic flow and ensuring that both high and low-priority traffic are effectively managed. This approach aligns with the principles of Segment Routing, which emphasizes flexibility and efficient resource utilization in modern networking environments.

In contrast, utilizing a single routing protocol across all layers may simplify management but does not inherently address scalability issues. Each layer has different roles and requirements, and a one-size-fits-all approach can lead to inefficiencies. Configuring static routes at the access layer is not advisable for scalability, as it can lead to increased administrative overhead and a lack of flexibility in adapting to network changes. Lastly, deploying a flat network design contradicts the principles of scalability, as it can lead to broadcast storms and increased complexity in managing traffic flows. By focusing on a hierarchical model with effective route aggregation at the distribution layer, the IT team can ensure that the network remains scalable, manageable, and capable of supporting future growth without overwhelming the core infrastructure. This design principle aligns with best practices in enterprise network design, emphasizing the importance of structured layers to facilitate growth and maintain performance.

The most plausible cause is that the router’s subinterface for VLAN 20 is not configured correctly. Each VLAN requires a corresponding subinterface on the router to handle traffic for that VLAN. If the subinterface for VLAN 20 is missing, misconfigured, or down, devices in VLAN 10 will not be able to route packets to VLAN 20, resulting in a communication failure. Option b suggests that the switch is not allowing VLAN 20 traffic to pass through, which is unlikely since VLAN 10 devices can communicate internally. If VLAN 20 were entirely blocked, devices in VLAN 20 would also be unable to communicate with each other. Option c implies that devices in VLAN 20 are using incorrect IP addresses, which could cause issues within that VLAN but would not affect communication from VLAN 10. Lastly, option d states that the switch’s trunk port is misconfigured to only allow VLAN 10, which would prevent VLAN 20 traffic from reaching the router. However, if this were the case, devices in VLAN 20 would not be able to communicate with each other either. In summary, the most likely cause of the connectivity issue is related to the router’s configuration for VLAN 20, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that all necessary subinterfaces are correctly set up and operational for inter-VLAN routing to function effectively.

When both voice and data packets are transmitted simultaneously, the network’s QoS policies will ensure that voice packets are processed first, minimizing delay and maintaining call quality. The requirement of 128 Kbps for voice traffic is well within the capacity of the 1 Gbps bandwidth, allowing for multiple simultaneous voice calls without degradation. On the other hand, data packets, which are marked with a DSCP value of 0 (Best Effort), will not receive the same level of priority. As a result, during peak hours when the network is congested, data packets may experience increased latency and potential packet loss, especially if the network is under heavy load. This prioritization is essential in maintaining the quality of voice communications, as any significant delay or loss in voice packets can lead to poor call quality or interruptions. In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about how QoS operates. For instance, treating both types of traffic equally would negate the benefits of QoS, leading to potential degradation of voice quality. Prioritizing data packets over voice contradicts the fundamental principles of QoS, which aim to ensure that time-sensitive traffic is handled appropriately. Lastly, dropping voice packets entirely due to bandwidth constraints does not align with the QoS strategy, as the goal is to manage traffic effectively rather than discard it based on bandwidth limits. Thus, the correct understanding of QoS principles and DSCP marking is critical for effective network management in environments where voice and data traffic coexist.

If the Local Preference values were equal, the next attribute considered would be the AS Path length. BGP prefers the route with the shortest AS Path, as this indicates fewer hops through other ASes. However, in this case, since the Local Preference of 200 is already higher, the AS Path length of 3 for the first route does not come into play. Finally, if both Local Preference and AS Path were equal, BGP would then consider the MED. The MED is used to influence incoming traffic from neighboring ASes, with lower values being preferred. However, since the Local Preference is the primary factor in this scenario, the MED values do not affect the decision. In conclusion, the route with the Local Preference of 200 will be selected as the best route due to its higher Local Preference value, demonstrating the importance of understanding BGP attributes and their hierarchical significance in route selection. This nuanced understanding is crucial for network engineers when optimizing routing policies in complex network environments.

When the host with the address 2001:0db8:abcd:0012:abcd:1234:5678:90ab sends a packet to the host with the address 2001:0db8:abcd:0013:abcd:1234:5678:90ab, the router must determine the next-hop address to forward the packet. The destination address falls within the subnet defined by the second interface (2001:0db8:abcd:0013::/64), which means the router will use the address of its own interface on that subnet as the next-hop address. The next-hop address for the router to reach the destination is therefore the address of the interface on the second subnet, which is 2001:0db8:abcd:0013::1. This process illustrates the fundamental principle of IPv6 routing, where routers utilize their interface addresses to forward packets to the appropriate destination based on the subnetting rules defined by the IPv6 addressing scheme. Understanding this routing behavior is crucial for effective network design and troubleshooting in an IPv6 environment.

When OSPF calculates the best path, it will sum the costs of the links involved. Since the router is directly connected to both areas, it will consider the cost of the link to Area 0 (10) and the cost of the link to Area 1 (20). The total cost to reach a destination in Area 1 via Area 0 would be the cost to Area 0 plus the cost to Area 1, which is $10 + 20 = 30$. However, if the router were to take the direct path to Area 1, the cost would simply be 20. Therefore, the router will compare these two total costs: 30 (via Area 0) versus 20 (directly to Area 1). Since 20 is less than 30, the router will prefer the direct path to Area 1. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding how OSPF calculates routing metrics and the significance of link costs in determining the best path. It also highlights the role of area design in OSPF, where the backbone area (Area 0) is crucial for inter-area routing. Thus, the router will ultimately choose the path with the lowest cost, which in this case is the direct connection to Area 1.

In this scenario, voice traffic is sensitive to latency and jitter, which can significantly degrade call quality if not prioritized. By marking voice packets with a higher DSCP value, such as EF (Expedited Forwarding), the network ensures that these packets are treated with higher priority in the network, allowing them to traverse the network with minimal delay. On the other hand, configuring all routers to use the same bandwidth allocation for both voice and data traffic would not effectively prioritize voice traffic, potentially leading to poor call quality during peak usage times. Relying solely on the default QoS settings of the routers is also insufficient, as these settings may not be optimized for the specific needs of the organization, especially in a diverse application environment. Lastly, applying a static routing policy that does not consider application types would ignore the dynamic nature of traffic and could lead to inefficient routing decisions that do not support the organization’s QoS objectives. In summary, the correct approach involves actively marking and managing traffic based on its type, ensuring that voice traffic receives the necessary priority to maintain quality, which is a fundamental principle of policy-based automation in network management.

When implementing PAT, all 50 devices can share a single public IP address. Each device will be assigned a unique port number for its outgoing connections, allowing the router to differentiate between the sessions initiated by each device. For example, if Device A connects to an external server on port 80, it might use the public IP address with port 10000, while Device B connects to another server on port 80 using the same public IP address but with port 10001. This method effectively allows the router to manage multiple connections from different internal devices using a single public IP address. Therefore, the minimum number of public IP addresses required in this scenario is just one, as PAT can handle multiple internal devices through port differentiation. This approach not only conserves public IP addresses but also simplifies the management of the network. Thus, the correct answer is that only one public IP address is necessary for the 50 devices to access the internet simultaneously.

If R1 fails, R2 will automatically take over as the active router because it is configured as the standby router. HSRP uses a mechanism called “hello” messages to monitor the status of the active router. These hello messages are sent at regular intervals (default is 3 seconds) by the active router to inform the standby router of its operational status. If the standby router does not receive these hello messages within a specified time (default is 10 seconds), it assumes that the active router has failed. Once R2 detects the absence of hello messages from R1, it will transition to the active state and assume the virtual IP address of 192.168.1.1, ensuring continuity of service. The transition is seamless to end-users, as they continue to use the same gateway IP address. It is important to note that the priority values are crucial in determining which router becomes active. A lower priority value does not lead to R2 becoming active; rather, it is the higher priority of R1 that allows it to remain active until it fails. Additionally, HSRP does not elect a new active router based on MAC addresses unless there is a tie in priority values, which is not the case here. Thus, R2’s role as the standby router is critical for maintaining network availability during R1’s failure.

The total available bandwidth on the link is 10 Mbps. When the critical application operates at its maximum burst rate of 2 Mbps, it consumes this amount of bandwidth. Since the application is allowed to burst, it will utilize the additional bandwidth temporarily, but if it consistently sends traffic at this rate, it will exceed the CIR. To calculate the effective bandwidth available for other applications, we need to subtract the bandwidth used by the critical application from the total available bandwidth. If the critical application is consistently sending at 2 Mbps, the calculation is as follows: \[ \text{Available bandwidth for other applications} = \text{Total bandwidth} – \text{Bandwidth used by critical application} \] Substituting the values: \[ \text{Available bandwidth for other applications} = 10 \text{ Mbps} – 2 \text{ Mbps} = 8 \text{ Mbps} \] Thus, when the critical application is consistently sending at its maximum burst rate, 8 Mbps of bandwidth remains available for other applications. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding how traffic policing and shaping can effectively manage bandwidth allocation in a network, ensuring that critical applications receive the necessary resources while still allowing for other traffic to flow.

The second option regarding incorrect OSPF area configuration could also lead to routes not being advertised, but it typically affects the visibility of routes between different OSPF areas rather than the absence of a route in the OSPF database altogether. The third option about administrative distance is misleading in this context; while administrative distance does affect route selection, it does not prevent a route from being present in the OSPF database. Lastly, if the OSPF process were not running, the router would not participate in OSPF at all, which would lead to a complete absence of OSPF routes rather than just a specific route not being advertised. Thus, the most plausible explanation for the observed behavior is the lack of a redistribution command, which is essential for integrating external routes into the OSPF routing domain.

Rebooting the server may seem like a quick fix, but it does not address the underlying issue if the application itself is misconfigured or if the firewall is blocking traffic. Similarly, replacing network cables is unnecessary since the ping test confirms that the physical connection is intact. Increasing bandwidth might improve performance but does not resolve the immediate connectivity issue, especially if the application is not responding due to configuration or firewall problems. Therefore, focusing on the application layer and firewall settings is the most effective next step in this troubleshooting scenario. This approach aligns with the best practices outlined in the OSI model, emphasizing the importance of addressing issues at the appropriate layer of the network stack.

When it comes to filtering results based on the `age` field, it is essential to consider the business logic that dictates which users should be returned. For example, if the requirement is to only return users above a certain age, the filtering logic must be implemented to ensure that only those profiles are included in the response. This not only optimizes the data returned to the client but also adheres to any regulatory or business requirements regarding user data. The other options present various shortcomings. Omitting pagination details (option b) would hinder the client’s ability to manage large datasets effectively. Not filtering based on the `age` field (option c) could lead to unnecessary data being transmitted, which is inefficient. Lastly, while including `next_page` and `previous_page` links (option d) is beneficial, failing to filter based on relevant criteria would not meet the functional requirements of the API. In summary, a well-structured JSON response that includes pagination information and appropriate filtering based on the `age` field is essential for creating an efficient and user-friendly RESTful API. This approach not only enhances performance but also aligns with best practices in API design.

To allow the route to be advertised, you need to modify the route map to include a permit statement for the prefix 192.168.1.0/24. This can be done by adding a match condition that specifically allows this prefix. For example, you could add a line in the route map that states `match ip address prefix-list ` where the prefix list includes 192.168.1.0/24. Changing the BGP neighbor configuration to use a different AS number is irrelevant in this context, as the AS number does not affect the advertisement of specific routes unless there is a misconfiguration in the peering relationship. Increasing the BGP update interval would not resolve the filtering issue, as the route is already present in the routing table; it simply needs to be allowed through the route map. Disabling the BGP session and re-establishing it would not address the underlying issue of the route being filtered by the route map. In summary, the correct approach is to modify the route map to ensure that the specific prefix is permitted, allowing it to be advertised to the BGP peer. This highlights the importance of understanding how route maps function within BGP configurations and their role in controlling route advertisement.

The second requirement emphasizes the need to deny all other incoming traffic, which aligns with the use of a standard ACL that explicitly permits only the defined IP addresses. This approach minimizes the attack surface by limiting exposure to only trusted sources. For the outgoing traffic, the requirement to translate internal addresses to a single public IP address is best achieved through Network Address Translation (NAT). NAT serves to obscure the internal network structure, providing an additional layer of security by preventing external entities from seeing the internal IP addresses. The other options present various flaws. A dynamic ACL allowing all external traffic contradicts the need for strict access control. A reflexive ACL, while useful for managing return traffic, does not address the requirement of restricting incoming connections effectively. Lastly, configuring a standard ACL to deny all external traffic would prevent any legitimate access to the web server, which is not the desired outcome. Thus, the combination of a standard ACL to permit specific external IP addresses and NAT for outgoing traffic provides a comprehensive solution that meets all outlined requirements, ensuring both security and functionality in the corporate network.

On the other hand, L2TP over IPsec, while also secure, may introduce additional overhead due to the encapsulation process, which can affect throughput. PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) is generally considered less secure and is not recommended for environments requiring strong security measures. Although it can handle IPv4 traffic, its support for IPv6 is limited and not as robust as IKEv2/IPsec. SSL VPNs provide flexibility and ease of use, particularly for remote access, but they may not be optimized for site-to-site connections with high throughput requirements. In summary, IKEv2/IPsec stands out as the most suitable protocol for this scenario, as it combines high performance, strong security, and comprehensive support for both IPv4 and IPv6, making it ideal for the company’s needs.

In contrast, using a variety of documentation formats without standardization can lead to confusion and inconsistency, making it difficult for team members to find and interpret information. Relying solely on visual diagrams without textual explanations can result in a lack of clarity, as diagrams may not convey all necessary details, especially for complex configurations. Lastly, creating documentation only when significant changes occur undermines the proactive approach needed for effective network management. Regular updates and documentation of routine configurations are essential to ensure that the documentation remains relevant and useful for troubleshooting and onboarding new team members. By prioritizing a centralized repository with version control and access permissions, the IT department can create a robust documentation standard that supports effective communication and operational continuity within the enterprise network.