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

HPE6-A85 Exam - Topic 1 Question 34 Discussion

The customer requires two Aruba CX 6200F 48G switches to be connected to each other with a distance of 80m/252ft between wiring closets. Switches need to have reservation for VSF expansion with ringtopology in each cabinet.What is a valid configuration for a redundant link-aggregation port configuration?
D) Ports 1/1/51 and 1/1/52 with SFP+ for LAG
A) Ports 1/1/49 and 1/1/50 with SFP28 for LAG
B) Ports 1/1/47 and 1/1/48 for LAG
C) Ports 1/1/1 and 1/1/2 for LAG

HPE6-A85 Exam - Topic 1 Question 34 Discussion

Actual exam question for HP's HPE6-A85 exam
Question #: 34
Topic #: 1
[All HPE6-A85 Questions]

The customer requires two Aruba CX 6200F 48G switches to be connected to each other with a distance of 80m/252ft between wiring closets. Switches need to have reservation for VSF expansion with ring

topology in each cabinet.

What is a valid configuration for a redundant link-aggregation port configuration?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: D

For an 80m distance between wiring closets, using SFP+ transceivers is appropriate as they can support longer distances than standard copper interfaces. Ports 1/1/51 and 1/1/52 are typically reserved for uplinks on Aruba CX 6200F 48G switches and can support SFP+ transceivers, making them suitable for a redundant link-aggregation port configuration.


by Theodora at Nov 16, 2024, 08:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium HPE6-A85 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Fletcher
6 months ago
I’m leaning towards A, but not sure about the SFP28 part.
upvoted 0 times
...
Azalee
7 months ago
C seems too low for a redundant setup, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ocie
7 months ago
Wait, why are we using SFP+ in option D? Seems odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laura
7 months ago
Definitely agree with B, it fits the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bulah
7 months ago
I think option B is the best choice for LAG.
upvoted 0 times
...
Aleisha
7 months ago
I recall that for redundancy, we should avoid using the lowest numbered ports, so maybe ports 1/1/1 and 1/1/2 aren't the best choice for LAG.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gennie
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused about the SFP28 and SFP+ options. Does it matter which one we choose for this configuration?
upvoted 0 times
...
Lewis
8 months ago
I think we practiced a similar question where we had to choose ports for link aggregation, and I feel like ports 1/1/49 and 1/1/50 were mentioned as a good option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Reena
8 months ago
I remember we discussed using ports that are not already in use for LAG, but I'm not sure which ones are available on the CX 6200F.
upvoted 0 times
...
Burma
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused by all the technical details in this question. I'm not super familiar with Aruba switches and their port configurations. I think I'll need to review the specs more carefully before deciding on the best option here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ryan
8 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. The switches need to be connected over a distance of 80m, so I'm guessing the higher-speed SFP28 ports would be the way to go. And since it's asking for a redundant configuration, option A with the two SFP28 ports seems like the right answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorenza
8 months ago
Hmm, I'm a little unsure about this one. The question mentions needing to reserve for VSF expansion with a ring topology, so I'm not sure if the standard Gigabit Ethernet ports would be the best option. Maybe I should look into the SFP+ ports instead.
upvoted 0 times
...
Evangelina
8 months ago
This seems pretty straightforward. The question is asking for a redundant link-aggregation port configuration, so I'm thinking option A with the SFP28 ports would be the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dudley
1 year ago
Option C, because who doesn't love starting from the bottom?
upvoted 0 times
Teri
1 year ago
Trevor: Sounds good, let's configure it that way.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brett
1 year ago
User 3: Agreed, let's go with Ports 1/1/1 and 1/1/2 for LAG.
upvoted 0 times
...
Trevor
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, starting from the bottom makes sense.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deja
1 year ago
User 1: I think option C is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Cordie
1 year ago
What, no option for using a carrier pigeon to connect the switches? I'm disappointed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sina
1 year ago
I'm going to have to go with B. Ports 1/1/47 and 1/1/48 just make the most sense to me.
upvoted 0 times
Joye
1 year ago
User 2: Yeah, I think so too. Those ports should work well for the link-aggregation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamekia
1 year ago
User 1: I agree, B seems like the best option for that setup.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lashanda
2 years ago
But wouldn't using SFP28 provide better performance for the link-aggregation port configuration?
upvoted 0 times
...
Jani
2 years ago
I'd go with D. Using the SFP+ ports for the LAG gives you the bandwidth you need for redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Brynn
2 years ago
Option A seems like the logical choice. SFP28 ports are perfect for the 80m distance.
upvoted 0 times
Gwenn
2 years ago
User 4: SFP28 ports are the way to go for connecting the switches with that distance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavina
2 years ago
User 3: I think option A is the most suitable for the configuration needed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thora
2 years ago
User 2: Definitely, SFP28 ports are ideal for that distance.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ivette
2 years ago
User 1: I agree, option A with SFP28 ports is the best choice for the 80m distance.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Mica
2 years ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is D) Ports 1/1/51 and 1/1/52 with SFP+ for LAG.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashanda
2 years ago
I think the answer is A) Ports 1/1/49 and 1/1/50 with SFP28 for LAG.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel