Pass the Fortinet Certified Solution Specialist FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Questions and answers with Dumpstech

FortiTelemetry is a critical part of Security Fabric communications and requires explicit configuration for each participating FortiGate interface. The administrative access setting "fabric" (corresponding to FortiTelemetry) must be manually enabled per interface on both upstream and downstream devices. This is performed in the GUI under Administrative Access or via the CLI using the command set allowaccess fabric for the relevant network interface. Without this step, FortiTelemetry communications will not occur on that interface.

Additionally, the default communication between downstream and upstream FortiGate units in the Security Fabric is over TCP port 8013. This port is well-documented as the standard for Security Fabric and FortiTelemetry connections, and must be open and permitted across the network path for connectivity and status enforcement between units. The downstream FortiGate initiates the connection to the upstream via this port unless otherwise configured. This has also been documented as a PCI-relevant port, showing its default usage.

Other options:

Neighbor Discovery in FortiOS uses IPv6 ND protocol, not TCP.

FortiTelemetry port (8013) can be modified, but the interface Administrative Access for the Security Fabric must be manually enabled; Neighbor Discovery port modification is not documented as a supported change for FortiGate.

To identify the reason for the lack of prefixes, we must interpret the State/PfxRcd and Up/Down columns in the get router info bgp summary exhibit.

Analyze Neighbor Status:

Neighbor 10.125.0.60: State is OpenSent. This session is not established. It is stuck in the negotiation phase.

Neighbor 100.64.3.1: State is Active. This session is not established. The router is actively trying to initiate a TCP connection.

Neighbor 10.127.0.75:

Up/Down: 02:45:55. This indicates the BGP session has been Up (Established) for almost 3 hours.

State/PfxRcd: 0. This number represents the count of prefixes received. The session is fully established, but the neighbor has sent zero routes.

Determine the Cause:

Since the session with 10.127.0.75 is established, connectivity and handshakes (Options A, B, C) are not the issue for this neighbor.

The fact that it is Up but sending 0 prefixes strongly implies that the neighbor is configured to filter out its routes before sending them to the local FortiGate.

Option D correctly identifies this as a RIB-OUT (Routing Information Base - Outbound) configuration issue on the neighbor (Router 10.127.0.75), which prevents it from advertising its routes.

IKEv1 (Internet Key Exchange version 1) and IKEv2 are protocols used for establishing IPsec VPN tunnels, and both protocols share the conceptual division into two phases, as clearly described in Fortinet VPN documentation:

Phase 1 handles negotiation and establishment of a secure IKE Security Association (SA) between peers.

Phase 2 negotiates parameters for the IPsec Security Association, which secures actual data traffic between peers.

While IKEv2 streamlines and improves upon IKEv1 by merging some message exchanges and simplifying configuration, it maintains the same core two-phase concept: Phase 1 (IKE SA) and Phase 2 (IPsec SA). This is a foundational VPN concept referenced widely in both IKEv1 and IKEv2 literature.

Other statements are incorrect:

Asymmetric authentication is possible, but not mandatory for both.

Both protocols commonly use UDP port 500, sometimes 4500 for NAT traversal, but they are not designed to run on TCP.

The protocol feature compatibility over TCP/UDP is not correctly described in the other options.

To determine the correct reasons for the adjacency failure, we must analyze the standard OSPF real-time debug output (diagnose ip router ospf all enable or diagnose sniffer packet) typically provided in this exam exhibit.

Analyze the Debug Output:

The debug output in this specific question scenario typically displays an incoming Hello packet line: OSPF: RECV[Hello]: ... auth-type 0 ...

"RECV": Indicates the packet is coming from the Remote peer.

"auth-type 0": Indicates the Remote peer is sending "Null" (No) authentication.

Analyze the Failure:

The adjacency fails because the Local FortiGate is rejecting this packet.

If the Local FortiGate accepts "No Authentication", it would match auth-type 0 and form the adjacency.

Since it is failing (and producing a debug log), the Local FortiGate must be expecting a different authentication type (Type 1 Cleartext or Type 2 MD5).

Evaluate the Options:

A. The remote peer has either OSPF cleartext or MD5 authentication configured.

Incorrect. The debug shows auth-type 0 (No Auth) coming from the remote peer.

B. There is an OSPF authentication configuration mismatch.

Correct. One side is sending "No Auth" (Remote), and the other expects "Auth" (Local). This is a definition of a mismatch.

C. The local FortiGate does not have OSPF authentication configured.

Incorrect. If the Local unit had "No Auth" configured, it would match the Remote's auth-type 0, and the adjacency would come up. The failure implies the Local unit does have auth configured.

D. The local FortiGate has either OSPF cleartext or MD5 authentication configured.

Correct. Because the Local unit is rejecting the "No Auth" packet from the remote peer, it confirms that the Local unit has authentication enabled (expecting Type 1 or 2).

Conclusion: The breakdown of the OSPF negotiation shows that the Remote peer is sending no authentication (Type 0), while the Local FortiGate expects authentication, resulting in a mismatch.