(Scenarios may contain multiple errors, which may or may not impact the solution.)
Refer to the exhibit.
An engineer has attempted to configure two pairs of switches in the referenced configuration. It is required to implement Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation for each pair of switches.
The ports of the Aruba 8325 switches used for Agg01 and Agg02 are populated as follows:
There is an error message stating “incompatible interface.” Which interfaces are the cause of the error? (Choose two.)
Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MC-LAG) requires that interconnected interfaces have matching configurations. Considering the interfaces provided, ports 1/1/12 and 1/1/13 are 10GBaseT SFP+ modules installed using Cat6A transceivers, which are compatible with one another. Ports 1/1/49 and 1/1/50 are 40G QSFP+ modules using Active Optical Cables, and also are compatible. However, port 1/1/48 is a 1GBaseT interface using a 100m Cat5e transceiver. The 1GBaseT interface is not compatible with the 10GBaseT interfaces (1/1/12, 1/1/13) or the 40G interfaces (1/1/49, 1/1/50). Therefore, the interfaces causing the issue must be 1/1/48. Since two interfaces need to be selected and 1/1/48 stands out as incompatible, we need to identify the second incompatible interface. Looking at the provided options once again, this leaves us with the most logical incompatible pair being 1/1/48 and the nearest listed option that the setup attempts to form a link with, thus being 1/1/12, making them the key interfaces causing the error.
My answer are A and C, see installation guide.