With Aruba CX 6300 VSF, how would you create a new OSPF configuration for a separate routing table when the layer-2 VLAN already exists?

With Aruba CX 6300 VSF, how would you create a new OSPF configuration for a separate routing table when the layer-2 VLAN already exists?

• A. Create a new OSPF area, and attach VRF name
• B. Create a new OSPF process ID with vrf name
• C. Attach a new OSPF process ID with a custom routing table
• D. Attach OSPF process ID in the VRF configuration

Answer: (B)

Running a separate OSPF instance for a specific VLAN requires isolating its control plane with a VRF and binding OSPF to that VRF. In Aruba CX, you achieve this by creating a new OSPF process and associating it with the VRF that represents the separate routing table. The process ID provides the distinct OSPF instance, while the VRF binding ensures all LSAs, neighbors, and routes stay in that VRF’s separate routing table. This combination is what gives you an independent OSPF domain and a distinct routing table for the VLAN, even though the Layer-2 VLAN itself remains the same. Choosing an OSPF area within a single process wouldn’t create a separate routing table for the VLAN, since areas are subdivisions of one OSPF process, not isolates for separate routing tables. Attaching or configuring in ways that don’t explicitly bind a new OSPF process to a VRF would not guarantee the needed separation of routing state. Creating a new OSPF process and binding it to the VRF name is the clearest and proper way to achieve the requested separate routing table.

Running a separate OSPF instance for a specific VLAN requires isolating its control plane with a VRF and binding OSPF to that VRF. In Aruba CX, you achieve this by creating a new OSPF process and associating it with the VRF that represents the separate routing table. The process ID provides the distinct OSPF instance, while the VRF binding ensures all LSAs, neighbors, and routes stay in that VRF’s separate routing table. This combination is what gives you an independent OSPF domain and a distinct routing table for the VLAN, even though the Layer-2 VLAN itself remains the same.

Choosing an OSPF area within a single process wouldn’t create a separate routing table for the VLAN, since areas are subdivisions of one OSPF process, not isolates for separate routing tables. Attaching or configuring in ways that don’t explicitly bind a new OSPF process to a VRF would not guarantee the needed separation of routing state. Creating a new OSPF process and binding it to the VRF name is the clearest and proper way to achieve the requested separate routing table.