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)

The customer needs a solution that can terminate VPN tunnels for Aruba RAPs, which are remote access points that connect to the corporate network over the Internet. The customer has only one public IP address, which means that they need to use NAT to forward the IPsec traffic to the device that will terminate the VPN tunnel. The customer also wants N+1 redundancy, which means that they need at least two devices that can act as backup for each other in case of failure.

The solution that meets the customer requirements is to use two Aruba MCs on the same subnet that use VRRP without clustering. VRRP stands for Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol, and it is a protocol that allows multiple devices to share a virtual IP address and act as a single gateway for the network. This way, the customer can use the virtual IP address as the public IP address for the NAT, and the IPsec traffic will be forwarded to the device that is the VRRP master. If the master device fails, the backup device will take over the role of the master and continue to terminate the VPN tunnels. This provides N+1 redundancy for the customer.

The other options are not suitable for the customer requirements:

• Option B is not suitable because a Layer 3 cluster requires two public IP addresses, one for each MC. The customer only has one public IP address, so they cannot use this option.
• Option C is not suitable because VRRP does not work across different subnets. The customer needs to have the MCs on the same subnet to use VRRP.
• Option D is not suitable because a Layer 2 cluster does not support NAT. The customer needs to use NAT to forward the IPsec traffic to the MCs.

References:

• Aruba Remote Access Point (RAP) Networks Validated Reference Design)
• Aruba Mobility Controller Virtual IP Configuration Guide)
• ArubaOS 8.5 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.