Multi-instance lets you split the physical FTD into multiple virtual devices, so you can segment traffic as needed. I remember a similar question on a practice test, pretty sure this is what they're looking for. The others don't support true separation. Agree?
Multi-instance lets you split the physical FTD into multiple virtual devices, so you can segment traffic as needed. I remember a similar question on a practice test, pretty sure this is what they're looking for. The others don't support true separation. Agree?
Is this asking specifically about the initial integration or about ongoing user mapping? That would change whether I’d pick B or C.
Quick question, does the scenario assume that all Firepower devices are already on a supported version? I think C because "supports all devices on supported versions" seems like the main point. If older versions matter, this could totally switch the answer.
I think it needs to be A. Since the passive-interface and SPAN are already done, the FTD is getting a copy of the traffic. But unless you set up an intrusion policy, nothing gets inspected for threats. Not 100% but matches what I've seen in labs. Anyone disagree?
D makes sense since excluding NAT devices should cut down on noisy events. But just checking, if the policy was set to "best" for discovery type instead of ALL, would that also reduce this overload?