Practice
Solution
Step 1: Understand the network requirements for fast convergence
Large networks with frequent topology changes require routing algorithms that quickly adapt to changes to prevent downtime and routing loops.Step 2: Compare Distance Vector and Link State routing characteristics
Distance Vector routing uses periodic updates and can suffer from slow convergence and count-to-infinity problems. Link State routing floods link state advertisements immediately upon topology changes and recalculates routes using Dijkstra's algorithm, leading to faster convergence.Step 3: Analyze the options
Distance Vector routing because it requires less memory and simpler computations is incorrect because although Distance Vector requires less memory and simpler computations, it converges slower. Link State routing because it uses periodic full routing table exchanges is incorrect because Link State routing does not use periodic full routing table exchanges but floods link state changes immediately. Distance Vector routing because it avoids flooding the network with updates is incorrect because Distance Vector routing does not avoid flooding; it sends periodic updates to neighbors. Link State routing because it quickly propagates topology changes and converges faster is correct because Link State routing quickly propagates topology changes and converges faster.Final Answer:
Option D -> Option DQuick Check:
Link State routing is preferred in large, dynamic networks for fast convergence.
- Assuming Distance Vector is always simpler and better for large networks
- Confusing periodic updates with flooding
- Believing Link State exchanges full routing tables periodically
Solution
Step 1: Identify AIMD response to triple duplicate ACKs
On triple duplicate ACKs, TCP performs fast retransmit and fast recovery, cutting congestion window to half.Step 2: Understand congestion window growth after loss
After halving, TCP increases congestion window linearly (additive increase) to probe for available bandwidth.Step 3: Differentiate from timeout behavior
Timeout triggers slow start (reset to 1 MSS), not triple duplicate ACKs.Step 4: Reject ignoring loss or stopping sending
Ignoring loss or stopping immediately are incorrect TCP behaviors.Final Answer:
Option C -> Option CQuick Check:
Triple duplicate ACKs -> halve cwnd -> linear increase.
- Confusing timeout and triple duplicate ACK loss signals
- Assuming exponential growth continues after loss
- Believing TCP stops sending immediately on loss
Solution
Step 1: Understand recursive query behavior
Recursive DNS servers perform all necessary lookups to resolve a domain fully before responding.Step 2: Impact on latency
This means the recursive server makes multiple network requests, adding processing and network delay.Step 3: Why other options are incorrect
Recursive queries do use caching (A is false), do not bypass root servers (C is false), and use UDP or TCP depending on size but that is unrelated to latency increase (D is false).Final Answer:
Option D -> Option DQuick Check:
Recursive queries add latency due to multiple lookups -> correct
- Believing recursive queries bypass caching
- Thinking recursive queries contact authoritative servers first
- Confusing transport protocols with query type
Solution
Step 1: Review TCP termination steps
Termination involves a four-step exchange: FIN from initiator, ACK from receiver, FIN from receiver, ACK from initiator.Step 2: Analyze each statement
Connection termination requires four steps involving FIN and ACK packets from both sides is correct describing the four-step process. Either side can initiate termination by sending a FIN packet is correct; either side can initiate. After termination, both sides enter a TIME_WAIT state to ensure all packets are received is correct; TIME_WAIT ensures delayed packets are handled. The connection closes immediately after the first FIN packet is sent is incorrect because connection does not close immediately after first FIN; it requires the full handshake.Final Answer:
Option A -> Option AQuick Check:
Termination is a multi-step process, not instantaneous.
- Assuming connection closes right after first FIN
- Thinking only server can initiate termination
- Ignoring TIME_WAIT state
Solution
Step 1: Understand NAT impact on IP Hash
NAT causes multiple clients to share a single public IP address.Step 2: Effect on IP Hash routing
Since IP Hash uses client IP, all clients behind the same NAT get routed to the same backend server, potentially causing load imbalance.Step 3: Mitigation strategies
Using additional session identifiers (cookies, tokens) can differentiate clients beyond IP, improving distribution.Step 4: Why other options are incorrect
Clients behind NAT have different IPs, causing inconsistent routing; mitigation is to disable IP Hash and use Round Robin incorrectly states clients behind NAT have different IPs; they share one. NAT devices block IP Hash algorithms; mitigation is to switch to Least Connections falsely claims NAT blocks IP Hash. IP Hash cannot detect unhealthy servers behind NAT; mitigation is to increase health check frequency confuses health checks with NAT issues.Final Answer:
Option B -> Option BQuick Check:
NAT causes IP Hash collisions; use extra session info to mitigate.
- Assuming IP Hash works perfectly behind NAT
- Thinking NAT changes client IPs individually
- Confusing NAT issues with health check problems
