HPE6-A85 Exam - Topic 1 Question 34 Discussion

Actual exam question for HP's HPE6-A85 exam

Question #: 34
Topic #: 1

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?

APorts 1/1/49 and 1/1/50 with SFP28 for LAG

BPorts 1/1/47 and 1/1/48 for LAG

CPorts 1/1/1 and 1/1/2 for LAG

DPorts 1/1/51 and 1/1/52 with SFP+ for LAG

Show Suggested 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:

Submit Cancel

Fletcher

3 months ago

I’m leaning towards A, but not sure about the SFP28 part.

upvoted 0 times

...

Azalee

3 months ago

C seems too low for a redundant setup, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Ocie

3 months ago

Wait, why are we using SFP+ in option D? Seems odd.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laura

4 months ago

Definitely agree with B, it fits the requirements.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bulah

4 months ago

I think option B is the best choice for LAG.

upvoted 0 times

...

Aleisha

4 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

4 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

4 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

5 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

5 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

5 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

5 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

5 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

...