A customer with a FortiDDoS 200F protecting their fibre optic internet connection from incoming traffic sees that all the traffic was dropped by the device even though they were not under a DoS attack. The traffic flow was restored after it was rebooted using the GUI.
Which two options will prevent this situation in the future? (Choose two.)
To prevent the situation where all traffic is dropped even when not under a DoS attack and resolved only after a reboot, two effective measures can be considered. First, changing the Adaptive Mode can help in better managing traffic and potentially preventing unnecessary drops. Second, creating a High Availability (HA) setup with a second FortiDDoS 200F will ensure redundancy, which means that if one device fails, the other can take over, preventing an overall traffic drop.
Explanation: B is correct because creating an HA setup with a second FortiDDoS 200F will provide redundancy in case one of the devices fails. This will prevent all traffic from being dropped in the event of a failure. D is correct because the FortiDDoS 1500F has a larger throughput capacity than the FortiDDoS 200F. This means that it will be less likely to drop traffic even under heavy load.
Correct Answer AC https://help.fortinet.com/fddos/4-3-0/FortiDDoS/Understanding_FortiDDoS_rate_limiting_thresholds_.htm also note that LC interfaces have bypass.
I agree - LC interfaces have bypass in case of failure D is incorrect because the issue resolved after a reboot not sure about B
The other options are incorrect. Option A is incorrect because changing the Adaptive Mode will not prevent the device from dropping traffic. Option C is incorrect because moving the internet connection from the SFP interfaces to the LC interfaces will not change the throughput capacity of the device
B and D as per ama6.
I suggest B and C for this DOC (https://help.fortinet.com/fddos/4-7-0/fortiddos/HA_feature_overview.htm)