HPE6-A47 Exam Dumps : Designing Aruba Solutions

Jitter is the variation in the delay of packets arriving at the destination. It is caused by network congestion, routing changes, or other factors that affect the transmission quality. Jitter can affect the quality of VoIP calls, as it can cause gaps, distortion, or echo in the audio. According to the Aruba Validated Reference Design for Voice and Video over Wi-Fi, the recommended maximum jitter for VoIP calls is 30 ms. Therefore, a jitter of 100 ms would typically cause a poor experience for users.

The other options are incorrect because:

• A. The packet loss is the percentage of packets that are lost or discarded during transmission. Packet loss can affect the quality of VoIP calls, as it can cause missing or corrupted audio. However, according to the Aruba Validated Reference Design for Voice and Video over Wi-Fi, the recommended maximum packet loss for VoIP calls is 1 percent. Therefore, a packet loss of 0.3 percent would not typically cause a poor experience for users.
• B. The throughput is the amount of data that can be transferred per unit of time. Throughput can affect the quality of VoIP calls, as it determines the bandwidth available for the audio. However, according to the Aruba Validated Reference Design for Voice and Video over Wi-Fi, the typical throughput for VoIP calls is 64 Kbps. Therefore, a throughput of 67 Kbps would not typically cause a poor experience for users.
• C. The latency is the delay between the sender and the receiver of packets. Latency can affect the quality of VoIP calls, as it can cause delays or out-of-sync audio. However, according to the Aruba Validated Reference Design for Voice and Video over Wi-Fi, the recommended maximum latency for VoIP calls is 150 ms. Therefore, a latency of 100 ms would not typically cause a poor experience for users.

References:

• Aruba Validated Reference Design: Voice and Video over Wi-Fi - Chapter 2)
• Aruba Certified Design Professional Official Certification Study Guide (HPE6-A47) - Chapter 7)

whether the MC needs to support advanced 8.x features. This is because the Aruba 7000 Series MCs are based on the older hardware platform and can only run up to ArubaOS 6.5.x, while the Aruba 7200 Series MCs are based on the newer hardware platform and can run ArubaOS 8.x and above. ArubaOS 8.x introduces many advanced features, such as clustering, MultiZone, AirMatch, and dynamic segmentation, that are not supported by the Aruba 7000 Series MCs. Therefore, if the architect needs to design a solution that leverages these features, the Aruba 7200 Series MCs are the better choice.

Option A is incorrect because the number of wireless devices that the MC needs to support is not a key criteria to choose between the Aruba 7000 Series or 7200 Series MCs.Both series can support a similar number of devices, depending on the model and license.

Option B is incorrect because whether the MC needs to terminate VPN tunnels is not a key criteria to choose between the Aruba 7000 Series or 7200 Series MCs. Both series can terminate VPN tunnels, such as IPSec, GRE, and RAP, depending on the model and license.

Option C is incorrect because the need to deploy controllers in a cluster is not a key criteria to choose between the Aruba 7000 Series or 7200 Series MCs. Both series can participate in a cluster, as long as they run the same ArubaOS version and have the same license.

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 6: Wireless Network Design, where the MC selection and ArubaOS 8.x features are discussed. Designing Aruba Solutions Official Certification Study Guide Aruba Mobility Controller Data Sheet ArubaOS 8.7 User 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.