A company has a campus network with two distribution switches (DSW1 and DSW2) connected via a Layer 2 trunk. Each distribution switch connects to two access switches. Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) is running with default settings. Recently, a network administrator added a new access switch (ASW3) and connected it to both distribution switches. After the connection, network performance degraded significantly, and users in VLAN 10 reported intermittent connectivity. The administrator checked the logs and saw multiple TCN notifications. What is the most likely cause of the issue?
A Layer 2 loop occurs when redundant paths exist without Spanning Tree Protocol actively blocking one of them. The new switch, if connected with multiple links to the distribution switches and STP disabled or misconfigured, will forward broadcast frames out all ports, causing a broadcast storm. This leads to severe symptoms such as high CPU utilization on all switches, MAC address table flapping, and complete network unavailability.
Why this answer
When ASW3 is connected to both DSW1 and DSW2 via Layer 2 trunk links, it creates a physical loop in the network. With default STP settings, the new switch will participate in the spanning tree algorithm, but the sudden addition of redundant links can cause a temporary loop or instability until STP converges. The multiple TCN (Topology Change Notification) messages indicate that the spanning tree topology is flapping, leading to MAC address table flushes and intermittent connectivity for VLAN 10 users.
This is the classic symptom of a Layer 2 loop caused by redundant links without proper STP configuration or before convergence completes.
Exam trap
Cisco often tests the distinction between a Layer 2 loop causing TCN flapping and a root bridge election, where candidates mistakenly think a new root bridge is the primary problem rather than the redundant physical loop itself.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option B is wrong because mismatched VLANs would cause traffic to be dropped or not forwarded, but would not generate TCN notifications or cause a Layer 2 loop; TCNs are triggered by changes in the spanning tree topology, not by VLAN mismatches. Option C is wrong because a lower bridge priority would make the new switch more likely to become the root bridge, but that alone does not cause a loop or performance degradation; STP would still converge and block redundant ports. Option D is wrong because if the new switch becomes the root bridge, it sends superior BPDUs (not inferior), and while this would cause a topology change, it would not inherently create a loop or cause the severe performance degradation described; the issue is the physical loop, not the root bridge election.