Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Microsoft Exam AZ-104 Topic 10 Question 96 Discussion

Actual exam question for Microsoft's AZ-104 exam
Question #: 96
Topic #: 10
[All AZ-104 Questions]

You have an Azure subscription that contains the virtual machines shown in the following table.

You deploy a load balancer that has the following configurations:

* Name: LB 1

* Type: Internal

* SKU: Standard

* Virtual network: VNET1

You need to ensure that you can add VM1 and VM2 to the backend pool of L81.

Solution: You create two Standard SKU public IP addresses and associate a Standard SKU public IP address to the network interface of each virtual machine.

Does this meet the goal?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Marya at May 21, 2024, 09:59 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium AZ-104 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Rolande
2 months ago
Okay, I'm going with 'No' on this one. The question specifically says the load balancer is internal, so public IPs don't make sense.
upvoted 0 times
Lawrence
1 months ago
User 3: No, using public IPs for an internal load balancer is not the correct solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carline
1 months ago
User 2: Yes, you are correct. Public IPs should not be used for an internal load balancer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Avery
1 months ago
User 1: No, the load balancer is internal so public IPs should not be used.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tammara
2 months ago
Ha! It's like the developers were trying to solve a problem that didn't even exist. Public IPs for an internal load balancer? That's a real head-scratcher.
upvoted 0 times
Monte
2 months ago
User 3: A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Minna
2 months ago
User 2: B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
Ailene
2 months ago
User 1: A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Charlena
3 months ago
Yeah, this seems like overkill. Why would we need public IPs for an internal load balancer? That's just adding unnecessary complexity.
upvoted 0 times
Cory
2 months ago
User 3: No, using public IPs for an internal load balancer is not the right approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jettie
2 months ago
User 2: Yes, it's definitely overkill. We should find a simpler solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nathalie
2 months ago
User 1: I agree, using public IPs for an internal load balancer does seem unnecessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Nu
3 months ago
Ah, I see what you mean. If the load balancer is internal, we shouldn't need public IPs. That's a bit of a strange solution.
upvoted 0 times
Phung
2 months ago
User 2: No
upvoted 0 times
...
Carry
2 months ago
User 1: Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonna
2 months ago
User 2: No
upvoted 0 times
...
Irma
2 months ago
User 2: No
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristal
3 months ago
User 1: Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Emily
3 months ago
User 1: Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Glenna
3 months ago
Hmm, I'm not sure that's the correct solution. The question states the load balancer is internal, so I don't think we need public IP addresses.
upvoted 1 times
Selma
2 months ago
A) Yes
upvoted 0 times
...
Marg
2 months ago
B) No
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel