MuleSoft MCPA-Level-1 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

Explanation

Correct Answer: The CloudHub shared load balancer

*****************************************

The scenario in this question can be split as below:

>> There are 3 CloudHub workers (So, there are already good number of workers to handle high volume of requests)

>> The workers are not using static IP addresses (So, one CANNOT use customer load-balancing solutions without static IPs)

>> Looking for most cost-effective component to load balance the client requests among the workers.

Based on the above details given in the scenario:

>> Runtime autoscaling is NOT at all cost-effective as it incurs extra cost. Most over, there are already 3 workers running which is a good number.

>> We cannot go for a customer-hosted load balancer as it is also NOT most cost-effective (needs custom load balancer to maintain and licensing) and same time the Mule App is not having Static IP Addresses which limits from going with custom load balancing.

>> An API Proxy is irrelevant there as it has no role to play w.r.t handling high volumes or load balancing.

So, the only right option to go with and fits the purpose of scenario being most cost-effective is - using a CloudHub Shared Load Balancer.

Explanation

Correct Answer: IP whitelist

*****************************************

>> OAuth 2.0 access token and Client ID enforcement policies are VERY common to apply on Experience APIs as API consumers need to register and access the APIs using one of these mechanisms

>> JSON threat protection is also VERY common policy to apply on Experience APIs to prevent bad or suspicious payloads hitting the API implementations.

>> IP whitelisting policy is usually very common in Process and System APIs to only whitelist the IP range inside the local VPC. But also applied occassionally on some experience APIs where the End User/ API Consumers are FIXED.

>> When we know the API consumers upfront who are going to access certain Experience APIs, then we can request for static IPs from such consumers and whitelist them to prevent anyone else hitting the API.

However, the experience API given in the question/ scenario is intended to work with a consumer mobile phone or tablet application. Which means, there is no way we can know all possible IPs that are to be whitelisted as mobile phones and tablets can so many in number and any device in the city/state/country/globe.

So, It is very LEAST LIKELY to apply IP Whitelisting on such Experience APIs whose consumers are typically Mobile Phones or Tablets.

Explanation

Correct Answer: They must be deployed to Anypoint Platform runtime planes that are managed by Anypoint Platform control planes, with both planes in the same Jurisdiction.

*****************************************

>> As per legal regulations, all data processing to be performed within a certain jurisdiction. Meaning, the data in USA should reside within USA and should not go out. Same way, the data in EU should reside within EU and should not go out.

>> So, just encrypting the data in transit and at rest does not help to be compliant with the rules. We need to make sure that data does not go out too.

>> The data that we are talking here is not just about the messages that are published to Anypoint MQ. It includes the apps running, transaction states, application logs, events, metric info and any other metadata. So, just replacing Anypoint MQ with a locally hosted ActiveMQ does NOT help.

>> The data that we are talking here is not just about the key/value pairs that are stored in Object Store. It includes the messages published, apps running, transaction states, application logs, events, metric info and any other metadata. So, just avoiding using Object Store does NOT help.

>> The only option left and also the right option in the given choices is to deploy application on runtime and control planes that are both within the jurisdiction.