Need Feedback on a Test Question

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by AN, Oct 27, 2006.

  1. AN

    AN Guest

    Hello Everyone,

    I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    the test engine. The test question is as follows...

    Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    switch port?

    switchport mode access
    switchport port-security
    switchport port-security maximum 2
    switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    switchport port-security violation shutdown

    Choices are:

    A- The port will shut down.
    B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    C- The host will be refused access.
    D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    already connected.

    Regards,

    Adil
     
    AN, Oct 27, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <muf0h.3580$>,
    AN <> wrote:
    >I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    >on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    >the test engine. The test question is as follows...


    >Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    >host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    >switch port?


    >switchport mode access
    >switchport port-security
    >switchport port-security maximum 2
    >switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    >switchport port-security violation shutdown


    >Choices are:


    >A- The port will shut down.
    >B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    >C- The host will be refused access.
    >D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    >already connected.


    Insufficient information.

    Two addresses are configured for the port, so it is not a simple
    case of shutting down the port as soon as it sees an additional MAC
    address beyond the one specifically configured.

    No MAC aging is configured on the port, and dynamic MAC addresses are
    not removed by a simple port carrier transition.

    We are given that 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    switch port; that implies that there are no other currently
    active hosts on the port that might be interferring with the question.

    However, what we are not told is whether any host other than
    0003.0003.0003 or 0002.0002.0002 has been connected to the port since
    the port was last "no shutdown" (e.g., boot time) or
    errdisable recovery'd or no switchport port-security mac-addres'd

    We therefore do not have enough information to answer the question.
    - if any MAC other than 0002.0002.0002 or 0003.0003.0003 has been on
    the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the port
    will shutdown, answer A.
    - if 0002.0002.0002 and/or 0003.0003.0003 are the only MACs presented
    to the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the
    port will permit the packet, answer B.
     
    Walter Roberson, Oct 27, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AN

    AN Guest

    On 10/27/2006 7:05:22 AM, wrote:
    >In article <muf0h.3580$>,
    >AN <> wrote:
    >>I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    >>on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    >>the test engine. The test question is as follows...

    >
    >>Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    >>host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    >>switch port?

    >
    >>switchport mode access
    >>switchport port-security
    >>switchport port-security maximum 2
    >>switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    >>switchport port-security violation shutdown

    >
    >>Choices are:

    >
    >>A- The port will shut down.
    >>B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    >>C- The host will be refused access.
    >>D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    >>already connected.

    >
    >Insufficient information.
    >
    >Two addresses are configured for the port, so it is not a simple
    >case of shutting down the port as soon as it sees an additional MAC
    >address beyond the one specifically configured.
    >
    >No MAC aging is configured on the port, and dynamic MAC addresses are
    >not removed by a simple port carrier transition.
    >
    >We are given that 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    >switch port; that implies that there are no other currently
    >active hosts on the port that might be interferring with the question.
    >
    >However, what we are not told is whether any host other than
    >0003.0003.0003 or 0002.0002.0002 has been connected to the port since
    >the port was last "no shutdown" (e.g., boot time) or
    >errdisable recovery'd or no switchport port-security mac-addres'd
    >
    >We therefore do not have enough information to answer the question.
    >- if any MAC other than 0002.0002.0002 or 0003.0003.0003 has been on
    >the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the port
    >will shutdown, answer A.
    >- if 0002.0002.0002 and/or 0003.0003.0003 are the only MACs presented
    >to the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the
    >port will permit the packet, answer B.


    Thanks for your feedback. Based on the information given in the question, I
    assumed that a host with the mac address of 0003.0003.0003 was the only the
    other host that connected to the port other than the one whose mac address
    has been statically configured for the port. So based on this assumption, I
    chose answer B, the port will permit the packet but the answer key says that
    the answer is A, which I don't understand how that could be.

    If there is anyone else out there that can shed some light why the answer key
    says that answer A is correct (who knows, it could be a mistake), please feel
    free to provide your feedback.

    Thanks,

    Adil
     
    AN, Oct 28, 2006
    #3
  4. AN

    Guest

    You are right. Answer B is correct. The host will be allowed to
    connect because of this statement: switchport port-security maximum 2.
    If it was set to one, then it would shutdown, but since it is set to 2,
    it will allow the host to connect. After a third host tries to
    connect, then it will shutdown. Hope this helps; this question is
    guaranteed to be on your switching exam.


    AN wrote:
    > On 10/27/2006 7:05:22 AM, wrote:
    > >In article <muf0h.3580$>,
    > >AN <> wrote:
    > >>I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    > >>on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    > >>the test engine. The test question is as follows...

    > >
    > >>Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    > >>host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    > >>switch port?

    > >
    > >>switchport mode access
    > >>switchport port-security
    > >>switchport port-security maximum 2
    > >>switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    > >>switchport port-security violation shutdown

    > >
    > >>Choices are:

    > >
    > >>A- The port will shut down.
    > >>B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    > >>C- The host will be refused access.
    > >>D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    > >>already connected.

    > >
    > >Insufficient information.
    > >
    > >Two addresses are configured for the port, so it is not a simple
    > >case of shutting down the port as soon as it sees an additional MAC
    > >address beyond the one specifically configured.
    > >
    > >No MAC aging is configured on the port, and dynamic MAC addresses are
    > >not removed by a simple port carrier transition.
    > >
    > >We are given that 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    > >switch port; that implies that there are no other currently
    > >active hosts on the port that might be interferring with the question.
    > >
    > >However, what we are not told is whether any host other than
    > >0003.0003.0003 or 0002.0002.0002 has been connected to the port since
    > >the port was last "no shutdown" (e.g., boot time) or
    > >errdisable recovery'd or no switchport port-security mac-addres'd
    > >
    > >We therefore do not have enough information to answer the question.
    > >- if any MAC other than 0002.0002.0002 or 0003.0003.0003 has been on
    > >the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the port
    > >will shutdown, answer A.
    > >- if 0002.0002.0002 and/or 0003.0003.0003 are the only MACs presented
    > >to the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the
    > >port will permit the packet, answer B.

    >
    > Thanks for your feedback. Based on the information given in the question, I
    > assumed that a host with the mac address of 0003.0003.0003 was the only the
    > other host that connected to the port other than the one whose mac address
    > has been statically configured for the port. So based on this assumption, I
    > chose answer B, the port will permit the packet but the answer key says that
    > the answer is A, which I don't understand how that could be.
    >
    > If there is anyone else out there that can shed some light why the answer key
    > says that answer A is correct (who knows, it could be a mistake), please feel
    > free to provide your feedback.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Adil
     
    , Oct 29, 2006
    #4
  5. AN

    Guest

    You are right. Answer B is correct. The host will be allowed to
    connect because of this statement: switchport port-security maximum 2.
    If it was set to one, then it would shutdown, but since it is set to 2,
    it will allow the host to connect. After a third host tries to
    connect, then it will shutdown. Hope this helps; this question is
    guaranteed to be on your switching exam.


    AN wrote:
    > On 10/27/2006 7:05:22 AM, wrote:
    > >In article <muf0h.3580$>,
    > >AN <> wrote:
    > >>I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    > >>on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    > >>the test engine. The test question is as follows...

    > >
    > >>Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    > >>host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    > >>switch port?

    > >
    > >>switchport mode access
    > >>switchport port-security
    > >>switchport port-security maximum 2
    > >>switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    > >>switchport port-security violation shutdown

    > >
    > >>Choices are:

    > >
    > >>A- The port will shut down.
    > >>B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    > >>C- The host will be refused access.
    > >>D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    > >>already connected.

    > >
    > >Insufficient information.
    > >
    > >Two addresses are configured for the port, so it is not a simple
    > >case of shutting down the port as soon as it sees an additional MAC
    > >address beyond the one specifically configured.
    > >
    > >No MAC aging is configured on the port, and dynamic MAC addresses are
    > >not removed by a simple port carrier transition.
    > >
    > >We are given that 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    > >switch port; that implies that there are no other currently
    > >active hosts on the port that might be interferring with the question.
    > >
    > >However, what we are not told is whether any host other than
    > >0003.0003.0003 or 0002.0002.0002 has been connected to the port since
    > >the port was last "no shutdown" (e.g., boot time) or
    > >errdisable recovery'd or no switchport port-security mac-addres'd
    > >
    > >We therefore do not have enough information to answer the question.
    > >- if any MAC other than 0002.0002.0002 or 0003.0003.0003 has been on
    > >the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the port
    > >will shutdown, answer A.
    > >- if 0002.0002.0002 and/or 0003.0003.0003 are the only MACs presented
    > >to the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the
    > >port will permit the packet, answer B.

    >
    > Thanks for your feedback. Based on the information given in the question, I
    > assumed that a host with the mac address of 0003.0003.0003 was the only the
    > other host that connected to the port other than the one whose mac address
    > has been statically configured for the port. So based on this assumption, I
    > chose answer B, the port will permit the packet but the answer key says that
    > the answer is A, which I don't understand how that could be.
    >
    > If there is anyone else out there that can shed some light why the answer key
    > says that answer A is correct (who knows, it could be a mistake), please feel
    > free to provide your feedback.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Adil
     
    , Oct 29, 2006
    #5
  6. AN

    AN Guest

    On 10/29/2006 6:24:11 PM, "" wrote:
    >You are right. Answer B is correct. The host will be allowed to
    >connect because of this statement: switchport port-security maximum 2.
    >If it was set to one, then it would shutdown, but since it is set to 2,
    >it will allow the host to connect. After a third host tries to
    >connect, then it will shutdown. Hope this helps; this question is
    >guaranteed to be on your switching exam.
    >
    >
    >AN wrote:
    >> On 10/27/2006 7:05:22 AM, wrote:
    >> >In article <muf0h.3580$>,
    >> >AN <> wrote:
    >> >>I wanted to post this question on the cisco forum because I wanted feedback
    >> >>on what the consensus thought should be the correct answer as I disagree with
    >> >>the test engine. The test question is as follows...
    >> >
    >> >>Given the following configuration on a switch interface, what happens what a
    >> >>host with the MAC address of 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    >> >>switch port?
    >> >
    >> >>switchport mode access
    >> >>switchport port-security
    >> >>switchport port-security maximum 2
    >> >>switchport port-security mac-address 0002.0002.0002
    >> >>switchport port-security violation shutdown
    >> >
    >> >>Choices are:
    >> >
    >> >>A- The port will shut down.
    >> >>B- The host will be allowed to connect.
    >> >>C- The host will be refused access.
    >> >>D- The host can only connect through a hub/switch where 0002.0002.0002 is
    >> >>already connected.
    >> >
    >> >Insufficient information.
    >> >
    >> >Two addresses are configured for the port, so it is not a simple
    >> >case of shutting down the port as soon as it sees an additional MAC
    >> >address beyond the one specifically configured.
    >> >
    >> >No MAC aging is configured on the port, and dynamic MAC addresses are
    >> >not removed by a simple port carrier transition.
    >> >
    >> >We are given that 0003.0003.0003 is directly connected to the
    >> >switch port; that implies that there are no other currently
    >> >active hosts on the port that might be interferring with the question.
    >> >
    >> >However, what we are not told is whether any host other than
    >> >0003.0003.0003 or 0002.0002.0002 has been connected to the port since
    >> >the port was last "no shutdown" (e.g., boot time) or
    >> >errdisable recovery'd or no switchport port-security mac-addres'd
    >> >
    >> >We therefore do not have enough information to answer the question.
    >> >- if any MAC other than 0002.0002.0002 or 0003.0003.0003 has been on
    >> >the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the port
    >> >will shutdown, answer A.
    >> >- if 0002.0002.0002 and/or 0003.0003.0003 are the only MACs presented
    >> >to the port since the last time the entries were cleared, then the
    >> >port will permit the packet, answer B.

    >>
    >> Thanks for your feedback. Based on the information given in the question, I
    >> assumed that a host with the mac address of 0003.0003.0003 was the only the
    >> other host that connected to the port other than the one whose mac address
    >> has been statically configured for the port. So based on this assumption, I
    >> chose answer B, the port will permit the packet but the answer key says that
    >> the answer is A, which I don't understand how that could be.
    >>
    >> If there is anyone else out there that can shed some light why the answer key
    >> says that answer A is correct (who knows, it could be a mistake), please feel
    >> free to provide your feedback.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Adil

    >
    >


    Thanks so much. By the way, I passed my advanced switching exam!!
     
    AN, Nov 13, 2006
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    996
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. AN
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    345
  3. AN
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    327
  4. Derek Fountain

    An unscientific lens test - any expert feedback?

    Derek Fountain, Mar 20, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    290
    Stacey
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. Matt Adamson

    Feedback from feedback on MCP questions

    Matt Adamson, Apr 27, 2009, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,635
    Matt Adamson
    Apr 27, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page