You save $69.98
At a regional hospital, the on-call technician must stop sending neighbor identity on an untrusted public-facing interface while preserving internal discovery. During review, someone proposes: "Turn off all routed protocols throughout the campus." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
Stopping OSPF everywhere is unnecessary and disrupts legitimate routing. The effective remedy is to disable CDP or LLDP transmission as appropriate on the exposed interface.
Discovery frames can reveal infrastructure metadata; limiting them on untrusted edges reduces disclosure. That distinction is technically relevant elsewhere, but it does not identify the failure of the proposed turn off all routed protocols throughout the campus. The actual issue is that stopping OSPF everywhere is unnecessary and disrupts legitimate routing.
Duplicate MACs create switching instability and do not prevent discovery leakage. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
CDP is a Layer 2 neighbor discovery advertisement; default-route changes do not disable its per-interface transmission.
At an airport terminal, a network operations engineer needs to interpret a local LLDP neighbor record listing a remote chassis ID, port ID and system name. During review, someone proposes: "Treat the record as proof the distant internet destination uses that port." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
LLDP is link-local and does not enumerate all routed hops. The effective remedy is to use the record to map the directly attached link, not a full routed end-to-end path.
STP and LLDP provide separate functions. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
LLDP receives advertisements from immediate Layer 2 peers on the interface. A true general network fact is not necessarily the direct diagnosis. The named change was treat the record as proof the distant internet destination uses that port, whose relevant defect is that lLDP is link-local and does not enumerate all routed hops.
Link discovery does not contain application packet payloads. That distinction is technically relevant elsewhere, but it does not identify the failure of the proposed treat the record as proof the distant internet destination uses that port. The actual issue is that lLDP is link-local and does not enumerate all routed hops.
At an insurance company, the migration lead must choose a standard way to distinguish local access switch port wiring when different vendor devices share the rack. During review, someone proposes: "Use Cisco CDP as a universal mandated inter-vendor standard." Which technical explanation most directly shows why this proposal does not solve the requirement?
Non-Cisco devices may not implement CDP. The effective remedy is to collect LLDP system and interface identifiers from the directly connected peers.
Root priority changes spanning-tree topology and does not supply link IDs. This observation would apply to another device or feature, not the proposed use cisco cdp as a universal mandated inter-vendor standard. For this scenario, non-Cisco devices may not implement CDP is the direct cause.
LLDP provides a common standard for local neighbor chassis/port discovery. That distinction is technically relevant elsewhere, but it does not identify the failure of the proposed use cisco cdp as a universal mandated inter-vendor standard. The actual issue is that non-Cisco devices may not implement CDP.
DNS domain metadata does not identify the actual physical peers. It concerns a different proposed change, not the change being evaluated.
At a telecom operations room, a network operations engineer is configuring GigabitEthernet1/0/28 in a negotiated LACP EtherChannel 32; the far end uses LACP passive. Which local mode should be set?
Active initiates LACP negotiation for port-channel 32; it can form with a correctly configured active or passive peer if member parameters match.
Passive alone waits for the peer to initiate LACP; if both sides are passive, negotiation will not start.
Desirable belongs to PAgP, not IEEE LACP, and will not negotiate the LACP-only far end.
Mode on forces static aggregation without LACP negotiation; it is not the requested LACP dynamic negotiation.
At a research campus, the on-call technician has two switches using LACP for a 9-member port-channel. Which pairing initiates successful negotiation given compatible physical links?
An active/active LACP pairing can negotiate and establish an aggregate when member settings match. Active sends LACP packets rather than waiting passively.
Passive/passive lacks an initiator so the peers will not dynamically form LACP aggregation.
Static mode on does not negotiate LACP with a passive peer and can create asymmetry.
PAgP is a different protocol from LACP; mixed negotiation types are incompatible.
At a design agency, an implementation partner sees member ports intermittently suspended from negotiated EtherChannel 13 after a template push. Which configuration practice should be checked first?
For a stable LACP EtherChannel 13, member interfaces must be compatible with the logical port-channel policy. Mismatched VLAN or physical parameters may suspend members.
Native VLAN mismatches cause inconsistent untagged-frame classification across the bundle.
An incompatible speed/duplex member typically cannot join the same working aggregate.
VLAN inconsistency between bundled Layer 2 members violates the expected common logical connection.
At a media studio, the infrastructure lead wants Layer 3 routed adjacency across LACP Port-channel63, not a multi-VLAN Layer 2 bridge. Which high-level configuration is appropriate?
Layer 3 EtherChannel uses a routed logical Port-channel63 interface; no switchport places it in routed mode, then the aggregate receives a Layer 3 address.
Unrelated member interface addresses are not a consistent logical routed bundle.
Layer 2 access VLAN configuration cannot represent the requested routed aggregate interface.
Trunk allowed VLAN lists are Layer 2 options and do not create a routed port-channel gateway.
At a hotel, the infrastructure lead needs verification that LACP EtherChannel 48 formed with two usable member links. Which observation directly supports this?
EtherChannel summary reports bundle and member state for group 48, while LACP neighbor details show negotiation with the intended peer.
The device hostname is unrelated to LACP port-channel formation.
Physical links can be up but remain independent or suspended; EtherChannel summary and LACP neighbor state provide membership evidence.
An enabled port-channel does not prove that two individual links joined as bundled `(P)` members.
At a research campus, a network operations engineer increased the LACP member count for port-channel 41 but observes one large TCP transfer not reaching total summed link rates. Which explanation is correct?
EtherChannel uses a load-balancing hash to select member links per flow/key, so many distinct flows can use aggregate capacity. One long flow often stays on one member to preserve ordering.
Per-packet round-robin is not the standard Cisco LACP load-distribution guarantee and can reorder packets.
LACP aggregates interfaces into a logical forwarding channel; it is more than media testing.
A single hashed flow is not generally able to consume all physical member links as one logical high-rate lane.
Two Cisco switches have matching EtherChannel member properties, but both ends are configured `channel-group 7 mode passive`. No LACP bundle forms. What change is sufficient to initiate negotiation?
LACP passive listens but does not initiate. Active on one peer can initiate LACP negotiation with the other passive peer; both active also works.
DHCP snooping protects against rogue DHCP servers and cannot initiate LACP PDUs.
PAgP and LACP are separate negotiation protocols and cannot form one shared bundle by mixing methods.
Mismatched member VLAN settings can block EtherChannel compatibility rather than trigger LACP initiation.
Two switches have compatible Layer 2 links assigned to Port-channel 56. SW1 is configured `channel-group 56 mode active` and SW2 `channel-group 56 mode passive`. The members remain unbundled after a later template change. Which finding would explain the failure even though the mode pairing itself is valid?
LACP active/passive can negotiate successfully, but physical and Layer 2 configuration compatibility (including trunks/VLANs) is still needed for a bundle.
An LACP active end transmits protocol PDUs and can negotiate with a passive peer; two passive ends would be the problematic pairing.
The group number identifies the logical Port-channel, not the number of physical links expected to join it.
PAgP is a separate aggregation protocol; both ends of this link already use compatible LACP modes.
or Guarantee your success by buying the full version which covers the full latest pool of questions. (760 Questions, Last Updated on Nov 4, 2026)
Please check your mailbox for a message from support@examlabs.com and follow the directions.
