HPE6-A47 Exam Dumps : Designing Aruba Solutions

ClearPass OnConnect is a feature of the ClearPass Policy Manager that allows wired authentication on switches that do not support 802.1X or RADIUS protocols. ClearPass OnConnect uses SNMP to monitor and control the switch ports based on the device profiles and policies defined in ClearPass12. ClearPass OnConnect can provide the following benefits for the customer:

• It can enable wired authentication without requiring any changes to the existing switch infrastructure or the end-user devices. This can save the customer’s budget and time, as well as minimize the network disruption and user impact.
• It can provide visibility and control over the wired devices, such as printers, IoT devices, and laptops, that connect to the network. ClearPass OnConnect can identify the device type, user role, and location, and apply the appropriate access policies based on the customer’s security and compliance requirements. For example, ClearPass OnConnect can allow only authorized devices and users to access certain network resources, or quarantine or block any unknown or non-compliant devices.
• It can integrate with the other components of the Aruba solution, such as the MCs, MMs, APs, AirWave, and ClearPass Guest, to provide a consistent and unified network management and security solution across the wired and wireless networks. For example, ClearPass OnConnect can leverage the device profiles and policies from ClearPass Guest, or share the network health and performance data with AirWave.

Therefore, by explaining this feature, the architect can justify the proposed solution and show how it can meet the customer’s needs and expectations for wired authentication, as well as wireless authentication.

References:

• 1: https://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ClearPass/6.7/PolicyManager/index.htm#CPPM_UserGuide/Admin/OnConnect.htm
• 2: https://www.arubanetworks.com/assets/tg/TB_ClearPass_OnConnect.pdf

the new 802.11ac deployment should have a capacity-based design for the best performance, but the existing deployment sounds like a coverage-based design. This is because a capacity-based design takes into account the number and type of clients, the applications they use, and the bandwidth they require. A coverage-based design only considers the signal strength and the absence of coverage holes. A site survey is desirable to determine the optimal locations for the new APs because it can help the architect to assess the current and future capacity needs, identify the sources of interference and noise, and optimize the channel and power settings for the new APs.

Option A is incorrect because an 802.11ac deployment does not necessarily work better with side-mounted APs. The mounting location of the APs depends on the antenna type, the ceiling height, and the RF environment.

Option C is incorrect because 802.11ac AP radios are not more sensitive to 2.4 GHz interference than 802.11n APs. In fact, 802.11ac APs operate in the 5 GHz band, which is less crowded and prone to interference than the 2.4 GHz band.

Option D is incorrect because 802.11ac APs cannot support a higher density of clients by being deployed farther apart. On the contrary, 802.11ac APs need to be deployed closer together to provide the higher data rates and throughput that 802.11ac clients expect.

References: The information can be referenced from the official HPE documents and learning materials available on HPE Press and Aruba Networks. Specifically, it aligns with the objectives outlined in Chapter 4: Wireless LAN Design, where the capacity-based design and site survey methods are discussed. Designing Aruba Solutions Official Certification Study Guide Aruba Mobility Fundamentals Guide

The traditional guideline limits a wired VLAN to a /24 subnet, which provides enough IP addresses for 253 endpoints. You might have suggested one of three approaches: one VLAN per floor, one VLAN per building, or one VLAN per campus. The one VLAN per floor approach is not recommended because it interferes with roaming and adds complexity. If you did take this approach, the /24 subnets are not large enough for the requirements on every floor. You would need to ask for /23 subnets. The one VLAN per building approach would work if you considered each building its own RF domain. It provides roaming within a building and, if you are using a single cluster at the data center, between buildings. Ifyou deployed two MCs or clusters, one at each building, though, GRE tunneling would be required to support roaming between buildings.