A network engineer is troubleshooting inter-VLAN routing on a Cisco Nexus 9000 switch. The switch is configured with VLAN 10 and VLAN 20. Hosts in VLAN 10 cannot ping hosts in VLAN 20. The engineer checks the VLAN ACL (VACL) applied to VLAN 10 and finds the following configuration: ip access-list VACL-FILTER 10 permit ip any any ... vlan access-map VACL-MAP 10 match ip address VACL-FILTER action forward vlan filter VACL-MAP vlan-list 10 What is the most likely reason for the connectivity failure?
Correct. VACLs are only for Layer 2 bridging. For inter-VLAN routing, apply a RACL on the SVI interface.
Why this answer
VACLs filter traffic at the ingress of a VLAN, but they only apply to traffic that is bridged within the same VLAN. When traffic is routed between VLANs (inter-VLAN routing), it passes through the SVI (Switch Virtual Interface), and VACLs do not inspect routed traffic. To filter inter-VLAN routed traffic, a Router ACL (RACL) must be applied to the SVI.
Since the hosts in VLAN 10 cannot ping VLAN 20, the VACL on VLAN 10 is not blocking the traffic; rather, the traffic is being routed and is not subject to the VACL, so the failure is likely due to a missing or misconfigured RACL or routing issue.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option A is wrong because the access-map does have a default action (the implicit deny at the end of the access-map sequence), and the permit all entry would forward traffic, so the VACL itself is not misconfigured; the issue is that VACLs do not apply to routed traffic. Option B is wrong because applying the filter to VLAN 10 only is correct for filtering traffic entering VLAN 10, but the problem is that inter-VLAN routed traffic bypasses VACL inspection entirely. Option C is wrong because while it correctly notes that traffic from VLAN 20 to VLAN 10 is not filtered by this VACL, the statement that 'this should not cause a failure' is misleading; the actual failure is due to the VACL not applying to routed traffic in either direction, not a one-way filtering issue.