Cisco 200-301 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

LACP election/priority cannot correct data-plane MTU incompatibility among members.

A bundle needs compatible member attributes; making MTUs deliberately unequal does not remove inconsistency.

Hash selection distributes flows but does not change physical interface MTUs or repair member compatibility.

Mode on forces static aggregation without LACP control exchanges, so it cannot achieve the requested faster LACP control interval.

Normal retains the slower default LACP interval rather than enabling the fast one-second rate.

PortFast changes spanning-tree edge behavior; it does not set LACP PDU timer intervals.

Active may form the channel but it initiates negotiation; the question specifically requires the partner that responds without initiating.

The on setting disables LACP negotiation and is not a passive responding participant in this LACP exchange.

PAgP auto is not an LACP responder and does not meet the stipulated LACP active/passive relationship.

VLAN presence does not identify which physical link is marked individual rather than included in the aggregate.

MAC learning does not provide the summary flags for individual versus bundled member ports.

Routing state cannot identify exactly which LACP member failed to bundle.

A physically up link does not expose the peer LACP actor/partner system ID and port information.

The summary is useful for aggregate flags, but LACP neighbor detail shows the partner state and identifiers requested.

STP forwarding roles are distinct from LACP partner state and negotiation.

STP may block redundant links and the interfaces remain separate rather than one logical bundle.

Two passive peers ordinarily fail to initiate aggregation into the required bundle.

Duplicating MAC identities does not establish one negotiated Port-channel for link aggregation.

Higher priority numbers create less-preferred bridge IDs; STP elects the lower bridge ID, not the larger one.

When priorities tie, the numerically lower bridge MAC wins, so relying on the highest MAC is backwards and unstable.

Port path cost affects route toward an existing root and does not make a switch win root bridge election.

Suppressing BPDUs is not equivalent to rapid host-edge forwarding and can mask an unauthorized bridging device.

Root Guard prevents an undesired root advertisement on designated links; it does not itself provide the edge-port rapid transition the PC needs.

Disabling STP sacrifices loop protection across the VLAN instead of accelerating the one verified host-facing edge link.

Root Guard places a port in root-inconsistent when it sees a superior BPDU; it is not the requested any-BPDU errdisable on a PortFast edge.

Loop Guard protects root/alternate roles from unexpected BPDU silence rather than disabling an edge port immediately when a BPDU arrives.

PortFast speeds convergence on host ports but does not by itself enforce the requested errdisable response to a received BPDU.

PortFast accelerates a true host edge but does not enforce which switch may become the spanning-tree root.

Suppressing BPDUs can hide loop information and is not the protective superior-root-BPDU response requested for a switch trunk.

Loop Guard protects against unexpected loss of BPDUs on alternate/root ports, a different failure mode from receipt of superior BPDUs.

Root Guard reacts to superior BPDUs arriving, not to an alternate port unexpectedly losing its expected BPDUs.

BPDU Guard is intended for edge ports that must not receive switch BPDUs, not for a legitimate redundant switch uplink.

PortFast would bypass some edge convergence behavior and could increase loop risk if applied to a redundant switch uplink.