Free Cisco 350-601 Actual Exam Questions - Question 8 Discussion
consistency. The solution must be easy to configure and manage and must support Python and YAML. Which
configuration management tool meets these requirements?
Option D is best since it uses simple YAML and Python modules, no agents needed.
Not A, since Puppet doesn’t natively use YAML and tends to have a steeper learning curve. B seems solid too, but Ansible’s agentless setup and straightforward YAML playbooks make it way simpler overall.
Good point about SaltStack’s strengths in network automation and Python support. But Puppet also uses a declarative language and has strong enterprise features—though it’s not as YAML-friendly. Could that limit its ease of configuration here?
D - It’s the easiest to manage with YAML playbooks and Python support.
D imo. Ansible is agentless, which makes deployment way easier in large infrastructures, and its playbooks are pure YAML, which fits the requirement perfectly without extra complexity.
B imo. SaltStack’s real strength is in network automation and it’s built on Python, which matches the requirement well. It also uses YAML for its state files, making configs easy to write and manage. Ansible is simple but SaltStack might edge out in handling complex network setups with more control. Puppet and Chef don’t natively use YAML as cleanly and are more complex to configure. So SaltStack seems like a solid fit if you want both Python and YAML support with strong network config capabilities.
It’s B. SaltStack is also Python-based and uses YAML, and it has strong abilities for network config management with flexibility that’s sometimes better than Ansible in complex environments.
Option B works too since SaltStack supports Python and YAML and is easier to handle than Puppet or Chef.
Agreed, pushing configs with simple YAML fits Ansible best—D.
It’s D, Ansible. Puppet can be complex to set up here.