Exam 200-301 topic 1 question 310 discussion

what is this garbage question

I tested this in packet tracer, feel free to try it yourselfs, the correct answer is D! Nothing says that the new switch doesn't allow trunking. It can´t be B, because when you configure the port in access mode it doesn´t evaluate the trunking commands, and access only permits one vlan. If you have access on one side the vlan comes untagged, for the other side to put this untagged vlan in a native vlan the port needs to be configured as trunk. Also this imposes that in the future to have vlan 10 passing here you would need to replace SW1 to have trunk funcionality or alternatively configure another uplink to pass vlan 10 the same way to new SW.

Connections between switch to another switch should be trunk and switch to endpoints(PCs) should be access.

So here's my take: A is incorrect because vlan 10 is listed twice, with no mention of vlan 2. Vlan 2 has to be in the configs. B is incorrect because you can't have a port in switchport mode access with vlan trunking enabled. The port is either an access port or a trunk port. It can't be both. The switch will ignore the "switchport trunk allowed vlan 2,10" command because the command "switchport mode trunk" is not specified. C is incorrect because of the same reason as B above. D is the only one that can be correct because we've eliminated the other 3. That and this is actually a valid config. I've tested it in packet tracer, and the PCs can still ping across with this config.

Access Mode: Since SW1 and SW2 do not support trunk ports, the new switch should operate in access mode to maintain compatibility. Trunk Allowed VLANs: Although this command is not typically used in access mode, the essential requirement here is to ensure VLAN 2 (existing traffic) and VLAN 10 (future traffic) are recognized. Native VLAN: Setting the native VLAN to VLAN 2 ensures current traffic between PC1, PC2, and PC3 is maintained.

The configuration is NewSW(config)#interface f0/0 NewSW(config-if)#switchport mode access NewSW(config-if)#switchport trunk allowed vlan 2, 10 NewSW(config-if)#switchport trunk native vlan 2

D is correct.

The correct answer is A.

one switch has no trunk port support and the new one has. How to form a trunk between those? Different modes on far ends are wrong we know that. New switch has to be access port. Really stupid question. Why asking about a 3rd party device in CCNA?

D is correct

Tried it in packet tracer: Having the interface fa 0/0 in access mode will lead to VLAN mismatch, so it has to be trunk mode.

It's actually a good question, please correct me if I am wrong, but the fact that the new switch can still be configured and needs to be configured to let vlan 2 traffic through, as if it is trunking, even though connected to non trunking interface, but in fact the only possible vlan 2 traffic is passed untagged (because it's native) , it would still work, as if it was an access mode, once the other old switch is replaced , both vlan 2 and vlan 10 is already configured and allowed as requested in the original requirements.....

I believe it's B however the question is annoying SW1 doesn't support trunks so we have to configure access port and "in the future" when they change SW1 trunk allowed command will be ready Not saying that with confidence though, dumb question

Correct answer is D for sure!

in switchport mode access : the interface can only carry ONE VLAN on that interface, only exception is with voice

Answer is D because of future need of vlan 10.

The question does not talk about the need for connectivity at this time, it only talks about allowing traffic for the future... it will be necessary to install a compatible intermediate switch