Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

Configuring compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP would not retain at least one LACP active participant and match the channel group parameters and port attributes.

Making physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration would not retain at least one LACP active participant and match the channel group parameters and port attributes.

Using a supported port-channel with acceptable minimum-link requirements for the intended redundancy policy would not retain at least one LACP active participant and match the channel group parameters and port attributes.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect `show etherchannel summary` and forwarding through the surviving member under link-failure test. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show etherchannel summary` shows bundled P members and the expected LACP neighbor.

This test measures a different behavior: Check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show etherchannel summary` shows bundled P members and the expected LACP neighbor.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show etherchannel summary` shows bundled P members and the expected LACP neighbor.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. Here the recorded observation is: one link is individual despite physical link-up when both peers switch to passive mode. The applicable cause is: two LACP passive peers never initiate the negotiation needed to form the bundle.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The port-channel remains up but one physical link is excluded from the bundle. Here the recorded observation is: one link is individual despite physical link-up when both peers switch to passive mode. The applicable cause is: two LACP passive peers never initiate the negotiation needed to form the bundle.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The whole logical interface drops because its configured minimum active member count exceeds the remaining links. Here the recorded observation is: one link is individual despite physical link-up when both peers switch to passive mode. The applicable cause is: two LACP passive peers never initiate the negotiation needed to form the bundle.

That control reduces a separate risk: The member's trunk/VLAN configuration is incompatible with the aggregated channel settings. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: two LACP passive peers never initiate the negotiation needed to form the bundle. The specific required safeguard is: validate active/passive negotiation and VLAN, speed and duplex consistency before changes.

Mixing LACP and PAgP would be a problem, but the scenario already describes compatible active/passive LACP participation.

Minimum-link settings control whether an established bundle remains up; they do not address the active/passive negotiation and matching attributes.

Using a supported port-channel with acceptable minimum-link requirements for the intended redundancy policy would not make physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration.

Selecting and testing a supported load-balance hash including useful source/destination fields for the actual traffic mix would not make physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration.

Configuring compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP would not make physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration.

This test measures a different behavior: Check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings.

This test measures a different behavior: Compare per-member traffic before/after hash changes using distinct hosts and ports. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect `show etherchannel summary` and forwarding through the surviving member under link-failure test. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. Here the recorded observation is: the port-channel remains up but one physical link is excluded from the bundle. The applicable cause is: the member's trunk/VLAN configuration is incompatible with the aggregated channel settings.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The whole logical interface drops because its configured minimum active member count exceeds the remaining links. Here the recorded observation is: the port-channel remains up but one physical link is excluded from the bundle. The applicable cause is: the member's trunk/VLAN configuration is incompatible with the aggregated channel settings.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Many sessions all map to one member because the chosen hash input is nearly constant for those conversations. Here the recorded observation is: the port-channel remains up but one physical link is excluded from the bundle. The applicable cause is: the member's trunk/VLAN configuration is incompatible with the aggregated channel settings.

This test measures a different behavior: Check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings.

The needed correction is to make physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration.

That control reduces a separate risk: The load-balance hash has too little entropy for the observed traffic patterns. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the member's trunk/VLAN configuration is incompatible with the aggregated channel settings. The specific required safeguard is: apply Layer 2 changes to port-channel interfaces and validate members' consistency.

Retaining at least one LACP active participant and matching the channel group parameters and port attributes would not configure compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP.

Making physical member switchport settings consistent with the port-channel configuration would not configure compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP.

Selecting and testing a supported load-balance hash including useful source/destination fields for the actual traffic mix would not configure compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP.

This test measures a different behavior: Check `show etherchannel summary` shows bundled P members and the expected LACP neighbor. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect the EtherChannel consistency reason and verify suspended members rejoin after restoring common settings. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links.

This test measures a different behavior: Compare per-member traffic before/after hash changes using distinct hosts and ports. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check negotiated protocol and channel summary on both sides for correctly bundled links.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: One link is individual despite physical link-up when both peers switch to passive mode. Here the recorded observation is: both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. The applicable cause is: the peers use incompatible EtherChannel negotiation protocols.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: The port-channel remains up but one physical link is excluded from the bundle. Here the recorded observation is: both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. The applicable cause is: the peers use incompatible EtherChannel negotiation protocols.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Many sessions all map to one member because the chosen hash input is nearly constant for those conversations. Here the recorded observation is: both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. The applicable cause is: the peers use incompatible EtherChannel negotiation protocols.