2V0-13.25 VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Architect Questions and Answers

VMware Cloud Foundation architecture uses the RACR framework (Requirements, Assumptions, Constraints, Risks) to classify inputs:

Business requirements describe high-level outcomes the business wants to achieve, often focusing on cost, efficiency, or customer satisfaction.

Technical requirements define how infrastructure should behave to meet performance, resiliency, or security needs.

Among the given options:

A (growth by 30%) and C (no SPOF) are technical requirements.

B (security and resiliency) is also a technical requirement.

D (reduce operational costs) directly aligns with business goals, making it the correct business requirement.

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Guide, a vSAN stretched cluster provides zero data loss (RPO = 0) and automated failover between two availability zones within the same region. It ensures continuous availability of workloads with minimal performance impact. The guide specifies:

“Stretching a vSAN cluster automatically initiates VM restart and recovery and has a low recovery time for unplanned failures. The solution supports synchronous replication with a maximum inter-site latency of 5ms RTT.”

This design fully satisfies the RPO (≤5 minutes) and RTO (≤30 minutes) requirements while minimizing performance impact, as all writes are synchronously mirrored between sites.

In contrast:

Backup-based recovery (A) and asynchronous replication (B) cannot achieve RPO < 5 minutes.

Array-based synchronous replication (D) is not applicable to vSAN-only VCF environments and introduces additional complexity.

Therefore, the vSAN stretched cluster is the recommended and VMware-validated solution for meeting near-zero RPO/RTO and automated failover requirements in a business-critical VCF environment.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Design Guide — “Stretching vSAN Clusters Across Availability Zones.” (pp. 1039–1042)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Architecture Overview — “Disaster Avoidance and Recovery with vSAN Stretched Clusters.” (pp. 290–292)

The VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture and Design Guide, in the section covering Istio Service Mesh integration, defines that objects and configurations in a service mesh are grouped and managed under Service and Cluster scopes.

“In an Istio Service Mesh deployment, objects are collected into groups to simplify policy management and routing. These groups can represent logical services or clusters to which policies apply, allowing consistent control across the environment.”

Service groups organize workloads that share a common application or microservice. They enable the consistent application of routing, observability, and security policies (e.g., mTLS, rate limiting).

Cluster groups define the boundary for multi-cluster management, enabling federated control and workload discovery across multiple Kubernetes clusters within the VMware Cloud Foundation ecosystem.

These group types allow centralized configuration, policy enforcement, and telemetry aggregation across workloads deployed in VCF-managed Kubernetes environments.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture and Design Guide — “Istio Service Mesh Architecture and Grouping Constructs.” (pp. 5798–5802).

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 — “Service and Cluster Group Management in Multi-Cluster Istio Deployments.

The overall private cloud SLA is 99.9%, but Platinum applications require 99.99%, which exceeds the infrastructure SLA. VMware design methodology states:

If an application’s SLA is higher than the infrastructure SLA, then the application itself must provide the additional resilience (e.g., clustering, active-active deployment, or application-level HA).

Options A and B reduce flexibility or impose unnecessary complexity.

Option D (Proactive HA) improves resiliency but cannot guarantee 99.99%, since Proactive HA still depends on underlying infrastructure SLA.

Therefore, the only valid recommendation is that Platinum workloads must implement resilience at the application layer.

A single workload domain in VCF maps to a single vCenter instance. When the host limit for that vCenter is reached (typically ~1000 hosts per vCenter), the correct and supported scale-out design is to deploy a second VI workload domain, which comes with its own dedicated vCenter instance, allowing continued expansion without affecting the existing domain.

To ensure zero RPO and high availability for the management domain, the best-fit design is to use a vSAN Stretched Cluster. With a 2ms latency and shared witness site, this design enables synchronous replication and automatic failover, ensuring no data loss (RPO 0) and minimal downtime.

For the workload domains where 24-hour RTO is acceptable, Live Recovery (leveraging replication and automation like Site Recovery Manager or Aria Automation Orchestrator) can be used to minimize operational effort and still meet recovery timelines. This strategy also aligns with minimizing hardware overhead by using the standby test infrastructure as failover capacity.

VCF Operations offers different deployment models based on scale and availability requirements:

Simple Model → Recommended for minimal footprint and greenfield deployments, where the organization wants to start small and expand later.

High Availability Model → Larger environments requiring immediate redundancy and scale.

Advanced / Standard Models → Targeted for more complex architectures with multi-site or advanced collection needs.

Since the customer’s goal is minimal footprint with future scalability, the Simple Model is the correct choice.

Upgrading a vSphere + vSAN environment to a full VMware Cloud Foundation deployment requires introducing the components that make up the integrated software-defined data center (SDDC):

A. NSX – Provides network virtualization, overlay segments, distributed firewalling, and routing required in VCF.

B. SDDC Manager – The core management and lifecycle automation tool of VCF, responsible for bring-up, patching, and upgrades.

E. vSphere Supervisor – Required to enable VMware Tanzu Kubernetes Grid (TKG) and modern application deployment in VCF environments.

Why not the others?

C. VCF Identity Broker – Provides federated authentication but is not mandatory for initial upgrade. It is optional depending on identity requirements.

D. VCF Operations – This is VMware Aria Operations (for monitoring/analytics). While strongly recommended, it is not required to upgrade from vSphere/vSAN to VCF.

The requirement to maintain software at N-1 versioning ensures that all components in the system maintain the most recent stable version of software while avoiding risks associated with "bleeding-edge" updates. This is a Security design quality because N-1 compliance mitigates exposure to vulnerabilities that might be present in older, unsupported versions. Additionally, VMware Cloud Foundation emphasizes maintaining the full stack within a supported compatibility matrix, aligning with security and compliance frameworks.

The constraint forces the use of the existing array. However, there’s a risk that performance/capacity may be insufficient. VMware’s best practice for risk mitigation in RACR is to plan for contingency.

A is correct because securing budget allocation for additional hardware addresses the risk if the array cannot meet requirements.

B (RAID mirroring) improves redundancy, not performance or capacity.

C contradicts the constraint (cannot ignore existing array).

D (extra Fibre Channel switches) doesn’t address storage array performance/capacity.

Thus, the best mitigation is budget planning for new hardware if the array fails to meet requirements.

Per the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 and 9.0.4 Architecture and Automation Design Guides, VCF Automation enables multi-tenancy by assigning dedicated orchestration instances per organization for secure separation of workflows.

The documentation specifies:

“The embedded VCF Operations orchestrator is installed by default as part of the Provider Consumption Organization. Each tenant organization that requires workflow autonomy must deploy its own external VCF Operations orchestrator instance.”

Thus, in a multi-tenant model:

The Provider Tenant uses the embedded VCF Operations Orchestrator instance to manage global workflows.

Each Tenant Organization must use its own external orchestrator instance for isolation, control, and workflow management.

This design ensures logical separation, prevents cross-tenant interference, and aligns with VCF’s security and autonomy best practices for service provider and enterprise models.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — “VCF Automation Orchestrator Deployment Options (Embedded vs. External).”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Design Guide — “VCF Operations Orchestrator Integration for Multi-Tenant Organizations.”

The requirements specify:

Large-scale migration (800 workloads).

No downtime.

Strict change window (4 weeks).

HCX Replication Assisted vMotion (RAV) is the only method that combines large-scale migration efficiency with zero downtime:

Workloads are replicated in advance.

During the cutover, a vMotion-like switchover completes with no outage.

Other methods:

Cross vCenter vMotion works for live moves but is not efficient for hundreds of VMs within a short timeline.

HCX OS Assisted Migration is for physical-to-virtual or non-vSphere workloads (not applicable).

HCX Bulk Migration is efficient but introduces downtime during cutover.

Thus, HCX RAV best meets the no-downtime, large-scale requirement.

In a VCF Fleet with Disaster Recovery (AZ model):

vCenter is replicated to ensure management of vSphere workloads continues after a site failure.

NSX is replicated for networking continuity (segments, TEPs, Edge services).

Other components:

SDDC Manager is fleet-level and not replicated per AZ.

VCF Automation and VCF Operations are optional add-ons and not replicated automatically by the DR model.

Thus, vCenter and NSX are replicated across AZs for resiliency.

In VMware Cloud Foundation, each VI workload domain is backed by a single vCenter Server instance. By deploying multiple clusters within the same VI workload domain, the architect can support multiple use cases (e.g., separating prod/dev), without provisioning new vCenters. This design reduces management overhead and operational complexity.

However, if stricter separation is needed (e.g., multi-tenancy or lifecycle independence), separate workload domains may be more suitable. While vSAN is the default, it's not mandatory unless vSAN Ready Nodes are used for bring-up.

A Provider-managed Content Library is curated and controlled centrally by the VCF administrator or provider. It enables vetting and version control over VM templates and OVFs, ensuring compliance with organizational policies, including security reviews. This directly supports the requirement that all images must be reviewed and approved before being used in deployments.

Dedicated NSX instances per workload domain provide the highest level of logical isolation and allow independent upgrade cycles, fulfilling the requirement of tenant-specific customization. Each workload domain with its own NSX instance can be managed separately, updated independently, and configured with its own security policies, BGP/VRF, segments, and gateways.

NSX Federation could achieve some level of centralization but does not support independent upgrade cycles per domain. A shared NSX instance breaks isolation and would tightly couple upgrade cycles, violating two of the key stated requirements.

This is a constraint, as it defines a non-negotiable time limit imposed by the customer’s budgeting timeline. It restricts the design phase’s schedule and deliverables. In VMware conceptual modeling, timing constraints are explicitly captured as constraints rather than requirements or assumptions.

The VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Documentation explicitly defines the four key component areas provided by a VKS cluster:

“The components that run in a VKS cluster span four areas: Authentication and authorization, storage integration, pod networking, and load balancing.”

These components are implemented as follows:

Authentication webhook: validates user access tokens.

Container Storage Interface (CSI): integrates with VMware Cloud Native Storage (CNS).

Container Network Interface (CNI): provides pod-level networking (Antrea or Calico).

Cloud Provider Implementation: enables Kubernetes LoadBalancer service creation.

This holistic integration ensures secure, scalable, and production-grade operation of Kubernetes workloads within vSphere Supervisor.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture Guide — “VKS Cluster Components.” (pp. 5637–5639)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Workload Management Overview — “VKS Functional Architecture and Services.”

As per the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide (Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Model Framework), a conceptual model defines what the solution will deliver at a high level — focusing on major components and interactions without specifying implementation details or configurations.

The statement “Users will connect to the application servers via the NSX Advanced Load Balancer” fits this definition because it identifies a functional relationship between solution components (users and applications) and introduces the NSX ALB as a key service enabler — without going into configuration or performance specifics.

In contrast:

Option A (MTTR 6 hours) defines a service level target, part of non-functional design.

Option B (stretched L2 networks) and C (vSphere HA parameter tuning) belong to the logical and physical design stages respectively, as they involve implementation specifics.

Therefore, D represents a conceptual model statement, describing service delivery intent and architectural interaction.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — “Conceptual, Logical, and Physical Design Layers Explained.”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Architecture Design Standards — “Conceptual Model: High-Level Service Definition and Interaction.”

According to the VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture and Design Guide, the vSphere Supervisor leverages the Cluster API open-source project to provide declarative, Kubernetes-style APIs for the creation, configuration, and lifecycle management of VMware Kubernetes Service (VKS) clusters.

The documentation states:

“The Cluster API provides declarative, Kubernetes-style APIs for cluster creation, configuration, and management. The inputs to Cluster API include a resource describing the cluster, a set of resources describing the virtual machines that make up the cluster, and a set of resources describing cluster add-ons.”

This API-driven model allows for automated provisioning and scaling of Kubernetes clusters by defining the desired state through YAML manifests. Cluster API (CAPI) is a CNCF open-source project that VMware has extended and integrated into vSphere Supervisor to deliver infrastructure-level automation, ensuring consistency, repeatability, and lifecycle management for VKS clusters.

In contrast, Grafana is used for monitoring, Contour for ingress control, and Kubeadm is a bootstrapping tool for standalone Kubernetes clusters — none of which provide cluster lifecycle automation in VKS.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Architecture and Design Guide — “VKS Architecture and Components.” (pp. 5635–5637)

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.4 Supervisor Components — “Cluster API Integration for VKS Lifecycle Management.”

VCF 9.0 design documentation specifies that LACP-based link aggregation between ESXi and ToR switches is supported only when LACP failback mode is configured, ensuring a link can pass traffic before LACP PDUs are received . Since the VMware team cannot change physical networking and aggregation is in place, the design must mandate LACP fallback to maintain compatibility and connectivity resilience. Other answers are incorrect because VCF supports link aggregation in both management and workload domains if properly configured .

In a multi-tenant environment, isolation, predictable performance, and scalability are critical. vSAN with tiered storage policies enables the architect to define performance tiers (e.g., RAID-1 for critical workloads, RAID-5/6 for capacity-efficient workloads). This aligns with the need for low latency and high IOPS for tenant workloads, without oversubscribing or compromising performance.

Options A and D disregard tenant performance and isolation, potentially leading to noisy neighbor issues. Option B reduces availability and scalability and is contrary to best practices.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation (Based on VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide):

The VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide clearly states that a single-site deployment introduces inherent risks when availability requirements extend beyond single host or rack failures. It specifies:

“A single-site VCF deployment tolerates host, rack, and component failure, but does not provide protection against total site failure. This design profile is not well-suited for disaster recovery or high availability across sites.”

Since the architect assumed that the solution must support high availability for workloads, but the environment is hosted entirely on a single physical site, the solution would not meet this assumption in the event of a site outage. This discrepancy represents a design risk — a potential event or condition that could prevent the design from fulfilling the availability requirement.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Design Guide — VCF Fleet in a Single Site Blueprint and Risk Considerations for HA and DR.

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.2 Architecture Overview — Availability and Recoverability Design Qualities.

To support MFA and integration with third-party authentication, the external VCF Identity Broker model (VIDB) is required. The external model is designed to interface with advanced identity providers supporting MFA, which the embedded model cannot accommodate.

Furthermore, to avoid shared components across multiple VCF instances and to reduce the impact of operational errors (e.g., configuration or certificate issues), a dedicated Identity Broker per VCF instance ensures complete separation and fault isolation.

This approach aligns with VMware’s recommended high availability and security practices for VCF 9.0. It ensures the MFA requirement is met and operational risks are minimized.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation from VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Documentation:

According to VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Design Guide (Table 59, “Certificate Management Design Recommendations”), VMware explicitly mandates that “Use a SHA-2 algorithm or higher for signed certificates. The SHA-1 algorithm is considered less secure and has been deprecated.” This recommendation (VCF-SEC-RCMD-CERT-002) is a foundational part of securing communication between management components and workload domains across the VCF environment.

The use of SHA-2 or higher ensures that all certificates used for SSL/TLS communication within the SDDC ecosystem (including vCenter, NSX Manager, and SDDC Manager) meet modern cryptographic standards to prevent vulnerabilities such as collision attacks. VMware Cloud Foundation enforces certificate management policies that require replacement of default VMCA-signed certificates with CA-signed certificates, and the SHA-2 algorithm ensures cryptographic integrity, authenticity, and resistance to tampering or impersonation.

This configuration directly satisfies the customer’s requirement for secure communication in the logical design of the workload domain. It ensures data in transit between components—such as management clusters, workload domains, and external systems—remains encrypted and trustworthy, aligning with VMware’s zero-trust and compliance-focused architectural principles.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 Architecture Guide):

Table 59: Certificate Management Design Recommendations — “VCF-SEC-RCMD-CERT-002 Use a SHA-2 algorithm or higher for signed certificates.”

VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0.1 PDF, pp. 306–308, 376, and 592 (Certificate Management Design Recommendations Sections).

VMware Cloud Foundation Security Governance and Compliance Design Section (VCF-SEC-RCMD-CERT-002).

VCF networking guidance emphasizes independent uplinks and notes that while LACP is supported, it is not recommended and introduces additional operational considerations. Specifically: “Link aggregation to the host is supported but not recommended—the default switch-independent load-based teaming (LBT) provides benefits similar to those of LACP without added configuration complexity.” It further states: “Use of LACP… requires specific LACP configuration and switch setup… Not all vSphere features are supported with LACP… [and is] API only.” The design recommendation is: “Ensure each connection between the fabric switch and host operates as an independent uplink.”

Given the customer constraint that the VMware Administration team cannot re-configure the physical network, the prerequisite physical switch port-channel configuration for LACP cannot be performed. During bring-up and life-cycle operations, the Management Domain must follow VCF’s standardized, automated patterns and therefore cannot rely on fabric changes the team cannot make. As a result, LAG cannot be used in the Management Domain, and the design must adopt independent uplinks (LBT) for management, vMotion, and VM traffic while using NFS as principal storage per the NFS Storage Model.

References (VMware Cloud Foundation documents):

• VCF 9.0.1 Design – Network Link Aggregation: support, “not recommended,” API-only, and independent uplink recommendation.

• VCF 9.0.1 Design – Link Aggregation Design Recommendations (independent uplinks).

• VCF 9.0.1 Design – NFS Storage Model (principal NFS usage context).