A network engineer is deploying a point-to-point Layer 3 EtherChannel between two Cisco Catalyst switches, SW-Alpha and SW-Beta.
On SW-Alpha, the engineer issued `no switchport` on physical interfaces GigabitEthernet0/1 and GigabitEthernet0/2, added them to `channel-group 10 mode active`, and then configured `interface Port-channel 10` with `no switchport` and IP address `10.20.30.1 255.255.255.252`.
On SW-Beta, the engineer configured `interface Port-channel 10` with `no switchport` and IP address `10.20.30.2 255.255.255.252`. Next, the physical member interfaces GigabitEthernet0/1 and GigabitEthernet0/2 were assigned to `channel-group 10 mode passive`, but the engineer omitted the `no switchport` command on those physical member interfaces.
Executing `show etherchannel summary` on SW-Beta displays the following output:
text Flags: D - down P - bundled in port-channel I - stand-alone s - suspended H - Hot-standby (LACP only) R - Layer3 S - Layer2 U - in use f - failed to allocate aggregate interface Group Port-channel Protocol Ports ------+-------------+-----------+----------------------------------------------- 10 Po10(SD) LACP Gi0/1(D) Gi0/2(D)
Which configuration oversight on SW-Beta caused Port-channel 10 to exhibit the `SD` (Layer 2, Down) status flags?
- The physical member interfaces on SW-Beta were left operating in default Layer 2 switchport mode, preventing them from joining a routed Layer 3 port-channel bundle.Cevap
- BLACP active mode configured on SW-Alpha is fundamentally incompatible with LACP passive mode configured on SW-Beta.
- CA native VLAN mismatch exists on the Port-channel 10 trunk interfaces between SW-Alpha and SW-Beta.
- DThe IP address was assigned to the logical Port-channel 10 interface instead of being configured directly on physical interfaces GigabitEthernet0/1 and GigabitEthernet0/2.