A municipal DR site wants ZTP servers local to that site so new gear can bring up if the primary DC path is down. Which placement idea best supports resilient site-local ZTP?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If the primary city DC is dark, the DR site still needs its own provisioning kitchen—local DHCP and file servers. That way DR leaves can cook their day-0 configs without hauling recipes across a broken WAN. Site-local ZTP infrastructure is resilience, not luxury.
Full Explanation
Place DHCP and file-server capacity local to the municipal DR site so bring-up can proceed independent of the primary DC path when interconnects fail. Hosting provisioning only in the primary DC makes DR hostage to the failed path. Disabling ZTP for courier-only USB abandons automated resilience during emergencies. ZTP across the public Internet via unmanaged resolvers expands trust-boundary risk unacceptably. Exam caveat: Site-local DR services should mirror controlled production provisioning policy, not unmanaged open endpoints. Operational check: Simulate primary-path loss and confirm a factory-default DR leaf still leases and fetches image/config locally. In civic data-center practice, treat the correct concept as part of a controlled management design rather than an isolated checkbox, and document the expected show-command or log evidence so the next on-call engineer can prove the fabric behavior without re-deriving the theory under pressure. In civic data-center practice, treat the correct concept as part of a controlled management design rather than an isolated checkbox, and document the expected show-command or log evidence so the next on-call engineer can prove the fabric behavior without re-deriving the theory under pressure.