Which statement about M-LAG setup is true?

Question

Options

• AWhen combined with IRF, M-LAG will allow you to aggregate ports coming from clustered HPE
• BM-LAG for HPE Synergy can be either single-homed or multi-homed, while for HPE BladeSystem
• CsFLOW cannot be enabled if M-LAG is configured between HPE Synergy Virtual Connect
• DM-LAG has to be defined manually for HPE BladeSystem, but it is automatically configured for

• A
  81% (48)
• B
  5% (3)
• C
  3% (2)
• D
  10% (6)

Explanation

Option A is correct because M-LAG (Multi-chassis Link Aggregation Group) and IRF (Intelligent Resilient Framework) are complementary technologies - IRF virtualizes multiple HPE switches into a single logical device, and layering M-LAG on top then allows uplink/downlink ports from those clustered switches to be bundled into a single aggregated link group, combining redundancy at both the chassis and link levels.

Option B is wrong because M-LAG connection types (single-homed vs. multi-homed) are not platform-restricted in the way the statement implies - the behavior is determined by topology design, not by whether you're using Synergy or BladeSystem.

Option C is wrong because sFlow monitoring is not blocked by M-LAG configuration; the two features can coexist in HPE Virtual Connect environments.

Option D is wrong because M-LAG configuration requirements do not differ between BladeSystem (manual) and Synergy (automatic) in this binary way - the statement misrepresents how M-LAG provisioning actually works across platforms.

Memory tip: Think "IRF stacks the switches, M-LAG stacks the links" - together they form a complete redundancy solution, which is why combining them (Option A) makes logical sense and is a valid supported design.

No community discussion yet for this question.