VMware 2V0-13.25 Dumps

RTO (Recovery Time Objective) defineshow quickly a system/service must be restoredafter a disruption. In this scenario, the infrastructure components should be fully functional within 4 hours.

This contrasts with RPO, which measuresdata loss tolerance. RTO focuses ondowntime tolerance.

VMware Cloud Foundation documentation on BCDR (Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery) explicitly defines these metrics during availability planning.

TheNSX VPC Full Services Modelallows tenant isolation usingVRF-lite, enablingindependent routing tableswithin the same Tier-0 gateway.

This ensures dedicated external access without requiring a separate NSX Edge cluster per tenant, therebyminimizing the number of Edge clusters.

VMware VCF 9.0 recommendsVRF Litefor multi-tenant environments with centralized Edge clusters and segmented routing needs.

SHA-2 or higher certificate signingensures cryptographic compliance with modern security standards.

Maintaining updated certificate thumbprintsis a crucial operational security task to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks between NSX managers.

These measures directly align with security hardening guidance outlined in the VCF design practices.

In VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0,vSphere Lifecycle Manager (vLCM)withcomposite imagesis the recommended method for managing host lifecycle. However, when using hardware ofdifferent generations, it's not advisable to use asingle composite imageacross clusters with hardware inconsistencies due to potential compatibility mismatches with firmware and drivers.

By usingseparate vLCM composite imagesfor each cluster (i.e., management and workload), the architect ensures thateach cluster's image is optimized for its specific hardware generation, reducing the risk of driver/firmware issues during updates or drift remediation.

This design aligns with the principle ofcluster-level lifecycle independence, especially important when working with a mix of hardware generations.

To support MFA and integration with third-party authentication,the external VCF Identity Broker model(VIDB) is required. Theexternal modelis designed to interface with advanced identity providers supporting MFA, which the embedded model cannot accommodate.

Furthermore, toavoid shared componentsacross multiple VCF instances and to reduce the impact of operational errors (e.g., configuration or certificate issues),a dedicated Identity Broker per VCF instanceensures complete separation and fault isolation.

This approach aligns with VMware’s recommended high availability and security practices for VCF 9.0. It ensures the MFA requirement is met and operational risks are minimized.

TheConceptual Modeldocumentsrequirements, assumptions, risks, and constraints (RACR). Here, the business use cases explicitly call formigration and containerization, which translates into arequirementfor the solution to supportVM and containerized workloads.

A = Constraint (UI accessibility).

C = Assumption.

D = Risk.OnlyBdirectly aligns with the business use cases and objectives.

Astretched cluster modelallows synchronous replication between sites withRPO = 0, ensuring no data loss.

Since the datacenters are withinlow-latency (<5ms) distance, stretched vSAN clusters with fault domains can span across them.

Other options:

A/B (disaster recovery models) rely onasynchronous replication, introducing potential data loss.

C (multi-rack fault domains) improves rack-level resiliency, notsite-level protection.

Thus, the correct design is aVCF fleet with stretched cluster model across fault domains.

Dedicated NSX instances per workload domainprovide the highest level oflogical isolationand allowindependent upgrade cycles, fulfilling the requirement oftenant-specific customization. Each workload domain with its own NSX instance can be managed separately, updated independently, and configured with its own security policies, BGP/VRF, segments, and gateways.

NSX Federationcould achieve some level of centralization but does not support independent upgrade cycles per domain. Ashared NSX instancebreaks isolation and would tightly couple upgrade cycles, violating two of the key stated requirements.

Validating aBCDR strategy in VCF with vSAN DPrequires bothimpact analysisandactive testing:

B. Assess the impact of failover scenarios– Ensures application dependencies, such as inter-site routing, DNS, and external services, are validated against failover scenarios. This prevents unexpected downtime due to overlooked dependencies.

D. Planned and unplanned failover tests– VMware best practices emphasize testingboth scheduled and unexpected recovery workflowsto validate RTOs and confirm operational procedures.

Why not the others?

A(annual testing only) contradicts VMware guidance, which recommendsfrequent and scenario-based validation.

C(generic plans) reduces workload alignment; VMware requiresapplication-aware recovery plans.

E(vSphere HA/DRS) does not replace site-level recovery orchestration and validation — HA/DRS only handles local host failures, not site disasters.

To enforcestrict separation of monitoring data, logs, and access control,deploying two separate VCF Operations instancesis the recommended solution. This ensures that each department (HR and Finance) has acompletely isolated monitoring stack, including dashboards, alerts, log retention, and user roles.

Although scopes and index partitions can provide some level of logical segregation within a single instance, they donot guarantee complete security isolation, especially in environments with strict compliance or multi-tenancy concerns. Deploying two separate instances ensurescompliance with data isolation and privacy requirements, making it the most secure and compliant option.

AProvider-managed Content Libraryis curated and controlled centrally by the VCF administrator or provider. It enables vetting and version control over VM templates and OVFs, ensuring compliance with organizational policies, including security reviews. This directly supports the requirement that all images must be reviewed and approved before being used in deployments.

The requirement to maintain software at N-1 versioning ensures that all components in the system maintain the most recent stable version of software while avoiding risks associated with "bleeding-edge" updates. This is aSecuritydesign quality because N-1 compliance mitigates exposure to vulnerabilities that might be present in older, unsupported versions. Additionally, VMware Cloud Foundation emphasizes maintaining the full stack within a supported compatibility matrix, aligning with security and compliance frameworks.

BGP loop prevention relies onunique AS numbers. If the same AS is reused, routes may be dropped. In NSX VPC designs,assigning a unique private AS per Tier-0 gatewayensures clean routing without triggering loop detection.

A: Timer adjustment affects convergence, not loop detection.

C: iBGP with physical routers is non-standard and doesn’t solve the loop issue.

D: TEP traffic is unrelated to BGP routing loops.

Asingle workload domain in VCFmaps to a single vCenter instance. When the host limit for that vCenter is reached (typically ~1000 hosts per vCenter), thecorrect and supported scale-out designis to deploy asecond VI workload domain, which comes with its own dedicated vCenter instance, allowing continued expansion without affecting the existing domain.

VCF 9.0 design documentation specifies thatLACP-based link aggregationbetween ESXi and ToR switches is supported only whenLACP failback mode is configured, ensuring a link can pass traffic before LACP PDUs are received . Since the VMware team cannot change physical networking and aggregation is in place, the design must mandateLACP fallbackto maintain compatibility and connectivity resilience. Other answers are incorrect because VCF supports link aggregation in both management and workload domains if properly configured .

The requirement specifying "yearly workload growth of up to 10%" relates directly to thesystem's ability to handle increased demand over time, which falls under the design quality ofPerformance. Performance in VMware Cloud Foundation design includes considerations for scalability and the ability to sustain projected growth. This requirement addresses the system’s capacity to manage future workload expansion without degradation in service levels.

Since the constraint isexisting stretched cluster model, the design assumes a single cluster across two sites.

To meet theminimize downtime requirement, theSingle Management Zone Supervisor with HA control planeensures control plane resiliency within that stretched cluster.

Options with “Simple Availability” do not meet the high availability requirement. Options with three zones are not applicable because the constraint specifies a stretched cluster model.

This statement expresses a financial limit — “Remaining budget” — constraining future expenditures on hardware. This is clearly aconstraint, as it restricts the design options (e.g., can't procure new hardware). In the VMware Conceptual Model framework, constraints are factors that limit design choices without introducing risk or goal definitions.