Download Latest FCSS_NST_SE-7.6 Questions

To determine the cause of the failure, we must analyze the IKEv2 debug output provided in the exhibit (image_ad3dc6.jpg):

Identify the Negotiation Phase:

The debug log shows: responder received CREATE_CHILD exchange.

In IKEv2, the CREATE_CHILD_SA exchange is used to create new Child SAs (Phase 2) or to rekey existing ones.

The fact that the tunnel was previously " brought up successfully " implies the initial IKE SA (Phase 1) is stable, and this error is occurring specifically during a rekey event, which often involves Perfect Forward Secrecy (PFS).

Analyze the Proposals (The Mismatch):

Incoming Proposal (Remote Peer):

The remote peer sends a proposal containing two Diffie-Hellman groups: type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP2048 (Group 14) and type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP1536 (Group 5).

My Proposal (Local FortiGate):

The local FortiGate configuration expects: type=DH_GROUP, val=MODP3072 (Group 15).

Result of the Negotiation:

The debug output concludes with: no proposal chosen and Negotiate SA Error.

This error occurs because the local FortiGate cannot find a common Diffie-Hellman group between what it requires (Group 15) and what the peer is offering (Groups 14 or 5).

While this is technically a mismatch occurring during the Phase 2 (Child SA) creation, " A Diffie-Hellman mismatch " (Option A) is the precise root cause identified in the logs.

Why other options are incorrect:

B: The log shows received create-child request, confirming that UDP traffic is reaching the device and is not blocked.

C: The failure is in the CREATE_CHILD exchange (Phase 2/Rekey), not the IKE_SA_INIT or IKE_AUTH (Phase 1) exchanges.

D: While the mismatch is occurring within the Phase 2 definitions, Option A is the specific technical reason for the no proposal chosen error shown in the DH_GROUP lines.

The correct answer is B .

In the exhibit:

Neighbor 100.64.1.254 shows State/PfxRcd = 1 , which means the session is established and the local FortiGate has received 1 prefix

Neighbor 100.64.2.254 shows State/PfxRcd = Active

The study guide explains the BGP states exactly:

Connect : Waiting for a successful three-way TCP connection

Active : Unable to establish the TCP session

OpenSent : Waiting for an OPEN message from the peer

OpenConfirm : Waiting for the keepalive message from the peer

Established : Peers have successfully exchanged OPEN and keepalive messages

It also explains how to read the State/PfxRcd column:

“If the state is not established, this column displays the BGP state. If the state is established, this column displays the number of prefixes that the local FortiGate received from that neighbor.”

Therefore, because neighbor 100.64.2.254 is in Active state, the correct conclusion is that the BGP adjacency cannot form because the TCP session could not be established .

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because BGP can establish adjacencies with multiple neighbors independently; one established neighbor does not block another

C is wrong because BGP adjacency is not established based on neighbor “priority”; the output shows adjacency is established because the session completed and prefixes were exchanged

D is wrong because having two neighbors in the same remote AS is valid in BGP and does not prevent adjacency formation

So the verified answer is: B .

The correct answer is D .

The exhibit shows:

session_count=591

clash=162

memory_tension_drop=0

TCP sessions:

166 in NONE state

1 in ESTABLISHED state

3 in SYN_SENT state

2 in TIME_WAIT state

The study guide explains the TCP protocol states and states explicitly:

“When a session is closed by both the sender and receiver, FortiGate keeps that session in the session table for a few seconds, to allow for any out-of-order packets that might arrive after the FIN/ACK packet. This is the state value 5.”

In diagnose sys session stat, the exhibit shows 2 in TIME_WAIT state . Since TIME_WAIT = state value 5 , those are the sessions being kept briefly for possible out-of-order packets. That makes D correct.

Why the other options are wrong:

A is wrong because session_count=591 is the total number of sessions, while the TCP sessions shown add up to only 172 (166 + 1 + 3 + 2). So not all sessions in the table are TCP sessions.

B is wrong because the study guide says the number of sessions deleted because of low free memory is shown by memory_tension_drop , and in the exhibit it is 0 , not 162.

C is wrong because the study guide defines ephemeral/open TCP sessions as those not fully established , but the exhibit does not say all 166 in NONE state are specifically “waiting to complete the three-way handshake.” The clearest directly supported statement from the displayed states is the 2 TIME_WAIT sessions retained for out-of-order packets.

So the verified answer is: D .

The study guide states:

“FortiGate categorizes an entry in the session table as an ephemeral session when it is a TCP session that is not fully established (three-way handshake not completed), or when it is a UDP session with only one packet received.”

This directly proves:

A is correct because a UDP session with only one packet received is ephemeral.

C is correct because a TCP session waiting for the SYN/ACK is not fully established , so it is ephemeral. The study guide’s TCP state table shows that the handshake is only completed when the session reaches ESTABLISHED

Why the other options are wrong:

B is wrong because once UDP traffic has been seen in both directions , it is no longer the “single packet received” condition described for ephemeral sessions. The study guide says for UDP: 00 = one way , 01 = both ways

D is wrong because a TCP session waiting for FIN/ACK is already in the closing stage after establishment, not in the “not fully established” stage. The study guide explains that after both sides close the session, FortiGate can keep it briefly in the table in state value 5 for out-of-order packets after FIN/ACK