2V0-13.24 Dumps With Exact Questions and Answers

In VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) 5.2, expanding an existing environment for a new application involves balancing resource needs, licensing, cost, and security. The requirements—high memory, limited licenses, approved budget, and isolation—guide the design. Let’s evaluate:

Option A: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application

This is correct. A new VI Workload Domain (minimum 3-4 hosts, depending on vSAN HA) can be tailored to the application’s high memory needs with new hardware. Isolation is achieved by dedicating the domain to the application, separating it from existing workloads (e.g., via NSX segmentation). Limited licenses can be managed by sizing the domain to match the license count (e.g., 4 hosts if licensed for 4),and the approved budget supports this. This aligns with VCF’s Standard architecture for workload separation and scalability.

Option B: Deploy a new consolidated VCF instance and deploy the new application into it

This is incorrect. A consolidated VCF instance runs management and workloads on a single cluster (4-8 hosts), mixing the new application with management components. This violates the isolation requirement for confidential data, as management and application workloads share infrastructure. It also overcomplicates licensing and memory allocation, and a new instance exceeds the intent of “expanding” the existing environment.

Option C: Purchase sufficient matching hardware to meet the new application’s memory requirements and expand an existing cluster to accommodate the new application. Use host affinity rules to manage the new licensing

This is incorrect. Expanding an existing VI Workload Domain cluster with matching hardware (to maintain vSAN compatibility) could meet memory needs, and DRS affinity rules could pin the application to licensed hosts. However, mixing the new application with existing workloads in the same domain compromises isolation for confidential data. NSX segmentation helps, but a shared cluster increases risk, making this less secure than a dedicated domain.

Option D: Order enough identical hardware for the Management Domain to meet the new application requirements and design a new Workload Domain for the application

This is incorrect. Upgrading the Management Domain (minimum 4 hosts) with high-memory hardware for the application is illogical—management domains host SDDC Manager, vCenter, etc., not user workloads. A new Workload Domain is feasible, but tying it to Management Domain hardware mismatches the VCF architecture (Management and VI domains have distinct roles). This misinterprets the requirement and wastes resources.

Conclusion:The architect should recommendA: Implement a new Workload Domain with hardware supporting the memory requirements of the new application. This meets all requirements—memory, licensing (via domain sizing), budget (approved costs), and isolation (dedicated domain)—within VCF 5.2’s Standard architecture.

References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architecture and Deployment Guide (Section: Workload Domain Design)

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Planning and Preparation Guide (Section: Isolation and Sizing)

The design focuses on IaaS control plane security for Kubernetes within VCF 5.2, requiring Kubernetes Network Policies, cluster-wide policies, and support for multiple Kubernetes distributions. VMware Container Networking integrates with vSphere with Tanzu (part of VCF’s IaaS control plane). Let’s evaluate:

Option A: NSX VPCsNSX VPCs (Virtual Private Clouds) provide isolated network domains in NSX-T, enhancing tenant segmentation. While NSX underpins vSphere with Tanzu networking, NSX VPCs are an advanced feature for workload isolation, not a direct implementation of Kubernetes Network Policies or cluster-wide policies. TheVCF 5.2 Networking Guidepositions NSX VPCs as optional, not required for core Kubernetes networking.

Option B: AntreaAntrea is an open-source container network interface (CNI) plugin integrated with vSphere with Tanzu in VCF 5.2. It supports Kubernetes Network Policies (e.g., pod-to-pod rules), cluster-wide policies via Antrea-specific CRDs (Custom Resource Definitions), and multiple Kubernetes distributions (e.g., TKG clusters). TheVMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guidenotes Antrea as an alternative CNI to NSX, enabled when NSX isn’t used for Kubernetes networking, meeting all requirements with native Kubernetes compatibility and security features.

Option C: HarborHarbor is a container registry for storing and securing images, not a networking solution. TheVCF 5.2 Administration Guideconfirms Harbor’s role in image management, not network policy enforcement, making it irrelevant here.

Option D: Velero OperatorsVelero is a backup and recovery tool for Kubernetes clusters, not a networking component. TheVCF 5.2 Architectural Guidelists Velero for disaster recovery, not security or network policies, ruling it out.

Conclusion:Antrea (B)meets all requirements by providing Kubernetes Network Policies, cluster-wide policysupport, and compatibility with multiple Kubernetes distributions, aligning with VCF 5.2’s container networking options.References:

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Architectural Guide(docs.vmware.com): Container Networking with Antrea.

VMware Cloud Foundation 5.2 Networking Guide(docs.vmware.com): NSX and Antrea in vSphere with Tanzu.

vSphere with Tanzu Configuration Guide(docs.vmware.com): CNI Options.