The alternative targets ACL deny versus service outage, where an ACL can block selected Layer 4 flows while other connectivity remains healthy; removing all controls is an unsafe shortcut. It does not establish the intended MAC authentication fallback fault behavior described in the scenario.

That action—Apply appropriate IPv6 RA protection on untrusted access ports—is relevant to IPv6 router-advertisement spoofing. IPv4 ARP safeguards do not inspect ICMPv6 router announcements; RA protection constrains unauthorized router information on client segments. It does not correct the observed MAC authentication fallback fault condition.

The VLAN used for an untagged or dynamically authorized session determines its broadcast and DHCP context; physical link state is not enough. Inspect the effective access VLAN and any role-based VLAN override on the affected port. would address access VLAN misassignment, but the reported facts instead point to MAC authentication fallback fault. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That action—Configure a supported redundant virtual gateway mechanism with correct priorities and tracking—is relevant to VRRP gateway resilience. A virtual first-hop gateway provides a stable client next-hop while authorized peers coordinate active forwarding after failure. It does not correct the observed VSX keepalive isolation condition.

The alternative targets VSF member management, where VSF presents supported physical members as a virtual switch while retaining operational requirements for healthy stacking links and member state. It does not establish the intended VSX keepalive isolation behavior described in the scenario.

Wireless features depend on the wired uplink and power available to the AP; sufficient coverage does not prove the device is operating at full capacity. Verify the AP's negotiated Ethernet link and available PoE power meet its installed feature requirements. would address AP uplink power and negotiation, but the reported facts instead point to VSX keepalive isolation. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That action—Verify supported firmware interoperability across dependent devices and management tools—is relevant to firmware compatibility dependency. Release-specific feature and compatibility constraints can break management or forwarding despite a successful image installation. It does not correct the observed NAE event rules on AOS-CX condition.

A capture tool sees only frames delivered to it; a correctly scoped mirror copies relevant ingress or egress traffic without changing production forwarding. Configure supported port mirroring for the target traffic direction and destination capture interface. would address port mirroring for packet capture, but the reported facts instead point to NAE event rules on AOS-CX. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets baseline interface health metrics, where counters are most useful when compared with known normal operating behavior and collection intervals rather than isolated snapshots. It does not establish the intended NAE event rules on AOS-CX behavior described in the scenario.

This would validate high-density WLAN airtime optimization, not legacy low-rate airtime overhead. Wireless capacity depends on shared airtime and contention as well as signal quality; excessive power can enlarge overlap without adding usable spectrum. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

Wide channels can improve peak rates per connection yet shrink available channel separation, raising cochannel contention in dense networks. The indicated result—peak-load tests show better aggregate throughput and fewer collisions with the selected width—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required legacy low-rate airtime overhead outcome.

That result—The report contrasts like-for-like baseline and post-change throughput, latency, retries and error statistics—concerns baseline before optimization. Optimization claims require equivalent loads, test methods and service metrics before and after; otherwise changes in demand confound comparison. It can be healthy even while the current legacy low-rate airtime overhead problem remains.

This would validate DNS mistaken for routing failure, not missing default gateway. If IP connectivity works but hostname access fails, DNS queries, responses or resolver policy may be broken despite healthy network routes. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

Repeated link transitions and frame errors point to Layer 1 quality or negotiation rather than an unseen WLAN authentication issue. The indicated result—the repaired link remains stable under load and physical error counters stop increasing unexpectedly—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required missing default gateway outcome.

That result—Both peers enter Full adjacency and exchange the expected route information—concerns OSPF neighbor area mismatch. OSPF requires compatible area identity, network type and essential adjacency parameters; IP reachability alone does not establish a neighbor. It can be healthy even while the current missing default gateway problem remains.

RADIUS exchanges rely on correctly configured shared secrets and client definitions; basic IP reachability does not establish a valid AAA relationship. Match the network access device's RADIUS client settings and shared secret to the authorized server definition. would address RADIUS shared-secret consistency, but the reported facts instead point to wired 802.1X port control. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets SSID-to-forwarding path consistency, where wireless association is only the first hop; downstream tunnel, VLAN and gateway mappings must agree for application access. It does not establish the intended wired 802.1X port control behavior described in the scenario.

That action—Configure DHCP relay on the correct client-facing routed interface where centralized DHCP is used—is relevant to DHCP relay on routed segments. Layer 3 boundaries do not normally forward client DHCP broadcasts without relay behavior; the helper target must also be reachable. It does not correct the observed wired 802.1X port control condition.

This would validate uplink oversubscription tuning, not trust and QoS marking boundary. Access port sum can greatly exceed distribution bandwidth, so congestion and burst tolerance must be planned rather than inferred from port speed labels. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

QoS can prioritize selected packets when contention occurs but cannot create bandwidth; correct queue treatment reduces latency for critical applications. The indicated result—under a reproducible congestion test, voice latency and jitter meet targets while other traffic remains serviceable—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required trust and QoS marking boundary outcome.

That result—Client RSSI, uplink quality and roaming measurements improve without creating coverage gaps—concerns transmit-power balance. Downlink strength from a powerful AP does not increase client transmit capability; asymmetric links and oversized cells can harm roaming. It can be healthy even while the current trust and QoS marking boundary problem remains.

That action—Record baseline interface utilization, errors, discards and latency before judging later degradation—is relevant to baseline interface health metrics. Counters are most useful when compared with known normal operating behavior and collection intervals rather than isolated snapshots. It does not correct the observed SNMP monitoring scope condition.

The alternative targets configuration API idempotence, where an idempotent workflow can be safely retried without proliferating duplicate objects or introducing inconsistent partial configuration. It does not establish the intended SNMP monitoring scope behavior described in the scenario.

Network device health does not establish application experience; end-to-end synthetic tests expose DNS, transport and service delays along the client path. Use UXI-style synthetic experience testing from representative user locations. would address UXI application tests, but the reported facts instead point to SNMP monitoring scope. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets voice queuing under load, where qoS can prioritize selected packets when contention occurs but cannot create bandwidth; correct queue treatment reduces latency for critical applications. It does not establish the intended multicast traffic scope behavior described in the scenario.

A change may help one metric while degrading another; phased deployment and recovery thresholds protect production service continuity. Pilot optimization with measurable success criteria and a tested rollback condition. would address optimization with rollback, but the reported facts instead point to multicast traffic scope. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That action—Configure storm-control thresholds based on observed legitimate broadcast levels and incident risk—is relevant to storm control tuning. Overly aggressive limits can discard necessary discovery traffic, while absent protection permits broadcasts to overwhelm forwarding capacity. It does not correct the observed multicast traffic scope condition.

Uncontrolled Ethernet loops replicate broadcasts and destabilize MAC learning; redundant links require a mechanism to block or logically aggregate unsafe cycles. Keep an appropriate spanning-tree or supported loop-free design across redundant Layer 2 paths. would address spanning-tree loop prevention, but the reported facts instead point to dynamic role enforcement. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets SSID role and VLAN assignment, where authentication success is not the same as authorization; WLAN roles and VLAN selection determine where the user can forward traffic. It does not establish the intended dynamic role enforcement behavior described in the scenario.

That action—Verify the AP's negotiated Ethernet link and available PoE power meet its installed feature requirements—is relevant to AP uplink power and negotiation. Wireless features depend on the wired uplink and power available to the AP; sufficient coverage does not prove the device is operating at full capacity. It does not correct the observed dynamic role enforcement condition.

EAP-TLS relies on a trusted certificate path; successful network reachability does not bypass expired or unknown issuing authorities. The indicated result—authentication logs and client diagnostics show a valid trusted handshake and correct certificate identity verification—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required RADIUS server reachability outcome.

This would validate captive portal redirect fault, not RADIUS server reachability. A guest can associate and receive a lease without completing the portal flow; redirect and pre-auth policy must permit necessary portal dependencies. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

That result—The repaired topology has stable learned MAC locations and broadcast volume returns to expected baseline—concerns MAC learning and unintended loops. Rapid MAC moves and broadcast amplification indicate switching topology instability, not a problem fixed by adding a default route. It can be healthy even while the current RADIUS server reachability problem remains.