Which statement regarding redundant trunk groups (RTGs) is true?

The statement that an aggregated interface can be a member of a redundant trunk group (RTG) is correct because RTGs are designed to provide redundancy for VLAN trunking by allowing multiple physical links to be combined into a single logical interface. This aggregation can be implemented using protocols like Link Aggregation Control Protocol (LACP), which supports creating a single logical link that can enhance bandwidth and provide failover capabilities. Therefore, when you configure a trunk group, it is permissible to include aggregated interfaces as members, enabling those interfaces to maintain trunking capabilities and effectively manage the traffic for the associated VLANs.

The other statements pertain to different aspects of network interface configuration and may not fully align with the characteristics of RTGs. For instance, the compatibility of STP (Spanning Tree Protocol) with RTGs may introduce complexities that affect redundancy features. Additionally, while RTGs are focused on redundancy and typically involve carrying the same VLANs across member links, the idea of different VLANs can complicate the redundancy mechanism. Lastly, the limit of 16 member links reflects the capabilities outlined for traditional trunking configurations, which are distinct from the specifics of RTGs. Thus, the valid premise concerning aggregated interfaces confirms its foundational role in network redundancy practices.