Pass Your Cisco 350-401 Exam Easy!

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

Configuring compatible EtherChannel negotiation protocol and modes at both peers rather than mixing LACP and PAgP would not meet the need for a supported port-channel with acceptable minimum-link requirements for the intended redundancy policy.

Explaining the per-flow load-balancing hash and distributing independent flows would not meet the need for a supported port-channel with acceptable minimum-link requirements for the intended redundancy policy.

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 `show etherchannel summary` and forwarding through the surviving member under link-failure test.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect per-member counters with one flow and several distinct flows to confirm hash distribution. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: inspect `show etherchannel summary` and forwarding through the surviving member under link-failure test.

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: inspect `show etherchannel summary` and forwarding through the surviving member under link-failure test.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: Both interfaces are up individually but no port-channel forms. Here the recorded observation is: the whole logical interface drops because its configured minimum active member count exceeds the remaining links. The applicable cause is: the EtherChannel minimum-links threshold is stricter than the planned single-member failover.

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: the whole logical interface drops because its configured minimum active member count exceeds the remaining links. The applicable cause is: the EtherChannel minimum-links threshold is stricter than the planned single-member failover.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A single backup TCP session never exceeds one member link speed. Here the recorded observation is: the whole logical interface drops because its configured minimum active member count exceeds the remaining links. The applicable cause is: the EtherChannel minimum-links threshold is stricter than the planned single-member failover.

Consistent member configuration is necessary, but the bundle will still drop if its minimum-links threshold exceeds the one surviving member.

That control reduces a separate risk: The peers use incompatible EtherChannel negotiation protocols. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: the EtherChannel minimum-links threshold is stricter than the planned single-member failover. The specific required safeguard is: set minimum-links policy to the real throughput and availability objective and test reductions.

A load-balancing hash affects how active members share traffic, not whether the bundle is allowed to operate after one link fails.

Using RSTP proposal/agreement behavior on suitable point-to-point links rather than legacy 802.1D timer-only expectations would not set an appropriate lower bridge priority on the intended root switch for that STP instance/VLAN.

Enabling STP root guard on the appropriate designated downstream-facing interface would not set an appropriate lower bridge priority on the intended root switch for that STP instance/VLAN.

Configuring an appropriate secondary root priority higher than primary but below ordinary access switches would not set an appropriate lower bridge priority on the intended root switch for that STP instance/VLAN.

This test measures a different behavior: Watch port state changes during controlled re-convergence and verify synchronization completes without a prolonged listening stage. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show spanning-tree vlan 100` root bridge ID and root port choices across the topology.

This test measures a different behavior: Present a superior BPDU and verify the port enters root-inconsistent state without replacing the desired root. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show spanning-tree vlan 100` root bridge ID and root port choices across the topology.

This test measures a different behavior: Disable primary in a lab and inspect the next-lowest bridge ID selection. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: check `show spanning-tree vlan 100` root bridge ID and root port choices across the topology.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A peer connected through a legacy shared segment converges slowly despite local RSTP configuration. Here the recorded observation is: a small access switch becomes VLAN100's spanning-tree root after a new switch is connected. The applicable cause is: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: An unintended access switch becomes root after the designed primary goes offline. Here the recorded observation is: a small access switch becomes VLAN100's spanning-tree root after a new switch is connected. The applicable cause is: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A newly attached access switch advertises superior BPDUs and takes over root elections. Here the recorded observation is: a small access switch becomes VLAN100's spanning-tree root after a new switch is connected. The applicable cause is: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly.

That control reduces a separate risk: No designated secondary root priority existed to guide the failover election. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly. The specific required safeguard is: document root and secondary root priorities and review new-switch default priority.

That control reduces a separate risk: The distribution-facing designated link lacks root guard for the downstream boundary. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly. The specific required safeguard is: document root and secondary root priorities and review new-switch default priority.

That control reduces a separate risk: Rapid proposal/agreement handshakes are not available across that legacy/boundary link. For the described design, the recurring risk arises from: root priority policy was not established, so the lowest bridge ID won unexpectedly. The specific required safeguard is: document root and secondary root priorities and review new-switch default priority.

Enabling supported loop guard on eligible non-designated point-to-point spanning-tree ports would not meet the need for portFast edge behavior with BPDU Guard on the host-facing port where supported.

Enabling STP root guard on the appropriate designated downstream-facing interface would not meet the need for portFast edge behavior with BPDU Guard on the host-facing port where supported.

Interpreting per-instance RSTP/MST port roles and forwarding states would not meet the need for portFast edge behavior with BPDU Guard on the host-facing port where supported.

This test measures a different behavior: Present a superior BPDU and verify the port enters root-inconsistent state without replacing the desired root. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: plug in a host and then an unauthorized BPDU sender; verify rapid forwarding then err-disable protection.

This test measures a different behavior: Inspect the interface BPDU filter state and verify received BPDUs are visible to STP during a controlled test. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: plug in a host and then an unauthorized BPDU sender; verify rapid forwarding then err-disable protection.

This test measures a different behavior: Suppress BPDUs in a lab and confirm the port enters loop-inconsistent rather than transitioning to designated forwarding. It does not establish the target outcome. For the documented fault, the direct acceptance test is: plug in a host and then an unauthorized BPDU sender; verify rapid forwarding then err-disable protection.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A newly attached access switch advertises superior BPDUs and takes over root elections. Here the recorded observation is: an unauthorized unmanaged switch forms a loop through a supposedly trusted desk port. The applicable cause is: the access edge port lacked BPDU Guard and accepted unexpected BPDUs.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A loop persists after an unmanaged bridge joins two access ports because their inbound BPDUs were suppressed. Here the recorded observation is: an unauthorized unmanaged switch forms a loop through a supposedly trusted desk port. The applicable cause is: the access edge port lacked BPDU Guard and accepted unexpected BPDUs.

That diagnosis is supported by a different symptom: A blocked alternate port starts forwarding after BPDUs cease, creating a loop. Here the recorded observation is: an unauthorized unmanaged switch forms a loop through a supposedly trusted desk port. The applicable cause is: the access edge port lacked BPDU Guard and accepted unexpected BPDUs.