Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Dell EMC Exam D-NWG-FN-23 Topic 6 Question 27 Discussion

Actual exam question for Dell EMC's D-NWG-FN-23 exam
Question #: 27
Topic #: 6
[All D-NWG-FN-23 Questions]

A customer reports they can no longer access their services and a network administrator has been assigned to investigate. A UFD disabled error status appears on all ports. What caused the issue?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

by Nan at Dec 04, 2024, 10:15 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium D-NWG-FN-23 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Deeanna
3 months ago
Definitely Option D. Putting a port channel and its members in the same uplink-state group is a recipe for disaster. Gotta keep those separate, man.
upvoted 0 times
Rolande
1 months ago
Definitely. The network administrator needs to fix that setup as soon as possible.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gary
1 months ago
I agree, it's important to keep them separate to avoid any network problems.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tu
1 months ago
We should make sure to keep those separate in the future to avoid any more UFD disabled errors.
upvoted 0 times
...
Harris
2 months ago
Yeah, that's a big no-no. It can cause all sorts of issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
2 months ago
Yeah, having both the port channel and its members in the same uplink-state group can definitely lead to problems.
upvoted 0 times
...
Pearly
2 months ago
I think it's option D too. That's a common mistake that can cause a lot of issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dong
2 months ago
Option D. Putting a port channel and its members in the same uplink-state group is a recipe for disaster.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Stephen
3 months ago
Ha! Looks like Option C is the winner. 'No issue, this is normal behavior.' Yeah, right! Good one, exam writer.
upvoted 0 times
Olga
3 months ago
User 2: Yeah, I agree. It's probably either option A or option B causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Santos
3 months ago
User 1: Option C is definitely not the winner. Something is definitely wrong here.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Clorinda
3 months ago
I believe option D could also be a possibility, as assigning both a port channel and its members to an uplink-state group could cause issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jerry
3 months ago
I'm not sure about this one. Maybe Option B is the right answer since an upstream interface in the uplink-state group going down could cause the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurel
3 months ago
Option D seems to be the correct answer. Assigning both a port channel and its members to an uplink-state group can cause this issue.
upvoted 0 times
Quentin
2 months ago
User 4: That makes sense, assigning both the port channel and its members could definitely cause the UFD disabled error status.
upvoted 0 times
...
Danilo
3 months ago
User 3: Actually, I think the correct answer is that both a port channel and its members were assigned to an uplink-state group.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonor
3 months ago
User 2: No, I believe one of the upstream interfaces in an uplink-state group went down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashanda
3 months ago
User 1: I think the issue is caused by implementing Spanning tree Loop-guard on the uplink-state group.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Dante
3 months ago
I agree with Stephaine, the upstream interface going down makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephaine
3 months ago
I think the issue was caused by option B.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel