Q: 9
An administrator is working with a network engineer to design the network architecture for a DR
failover.
Because DNS is well-designed, the DR site will use a different subnet but retain the same last octet in
the IP address.
What is the best way to achieve this?
Options
Discussion
Option D for sure. Offset-based mapping is built into Nutanix and handles subnet changes so easily without manual edits. Agree?
B . IPAM seems like the right tool if you want dynamic address assignment at DR and not tied down to manual or offset schemes. It lets you handle subnet changes automatically too but maybe doesn't guarantee last octet stays the same, depending on config. I think D is more Nutanix-native, but B sounded workable to me. Anyone see a big downside with B here?
D . Offset-based IP mapping in Nutanix does exactly this, it auto-adjusts the subnet while keeping the last octet. Makes failover smooth without extra manual steps. Pretty sure that's what they're looking for here, unless I'm missing something subtle.
D, Offset-based mapping does exactly what the scenario is asking for, so pretty sure that's the best option here.
C/D? Nutanix docs and some exam practice both mention offset-based IP mapping, so I'd say D fits best here.
B tbh, IPAM could do the dynamic assignment and that's often used for automation in DR scenarios. D is tempting but sometimes people overcomplicate with offset mapping. Trap here is thinking Nutanix native features always win.
Its D here, since offset-based IP mapping specifically handles subnet changes but keeps the last octet intact. If DR meant changing more than just the subnet, maybe IPAM would be better. Anyone see a real edge case where B wins?
Probably D. Offset-based IP mapping avoids manual mistakes, unlike C which is tedious and error-prone.
D is the right pick here since offset-based IP mapping in Nutanix Recovery Plans lets you automatically swap subnets while keeping the same last octet, which is exactly what the question is looking for. B (IPAM) could help with automation, but it doesn't guarantee that last octet preservation unless you're super careful with addressing pools. I think D's simpler and matches Nutanix's recommended approach. Someone might see value in B for flexibility though-agree?
D
Be respectful. No spam.
