A newly attached application is placed in the wrong group
A new application server is connected to an ACI leaf through a trunk. Its physical link is up, and the intended EPG exists under the correct tenant. The server sends tagged VLAN 311, but the static path binding specifies VLAN 310. The associated physical domain's VLAN pool and the interface policy relationships have not yet been checked. Separately, the application needs TCP destination port 8443 from a client EPG, while the existing contract filter permits TCP 443. The VRF is enforced and no preferred-group exception applies. Management access to the server is through a different interface. The engineer needs to separate classification, forwarding, and service permission rather than use management reachability or object presence as complete validation.
1. Identify the two specific mismatches and their dependency checks.
Read the worked answer
Reconcile the actual server tag with the intended static path binding, checking the interface-policy chain, domain, and VLAN pool. Separately verify the client/server provider-consumer relationships and a filter that matches the required TCP destination port 8443 rather than 443.
2. How should success be demonstrated?
Read the worked answer
Verify endpoint learning in the intended classification, correct forwarding context, and a representative client-to-server application test with its return path. Confirm the narrower intended policy rather than create broad permission or rely on the separate management interface.