HPE6-A47 Exam Dumps : Designing Aruba Solutions

 The correct answer is option C, conversion of the existing Instant APs to campus APs (CAPs). This is because the existing Instant APs can be converted to CAPs by changing their operating mode and pointing them to the MC. This way, the customer can leverage the existing APs and avoid purchasing new ones. The MC can then provide centralized management, configuration, and control for the APs.

Option A is incorrect because the purchase of Universal APs is not necessary. Universal APs are APs that can operate in either Instant or CAP mode without requiring a conversion. However, the existing APs can be converted to CAPs without buying new ones.

Option B is incorrect because Aruba ClearPass is not required to onboard the APs as CAPs in the new MC-based deployment. Aruba ClearPass is a network access control (NAC) solution that provides authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA) services for wired and wireless devices. It is not involved in the conversion of Instant APs to CAPs.

Option D is incorrect because a Virtual Mobility Controller (VMC) is not a valid option to control Instant APs. A VMC is a software-based MC that runs on a hypervisor. It can control CAPs, but not Instant APs. Instant APs can only be controlled by another Instant AP acting as a Virtual Controller (VC).

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 Instant and CAP modes and the MC options are discussed. Designing Aruba Solutions Official Certification Study Guide Aruba Instant User Guide Aruba Mobility Controller Data Sheet

This answer is correct because it matches the scenario for which the Aruba backplane stacking technology is designed. Aruba backplane stacking technology allows up to 10 switches to be interconnected using high-speed backplane cables, creating a single logical device with a single IP address and configuration. This simplifies the management and operation of the network, as well as the redundancy design, as the stack can operate in ring or chain topology and provide fast failover in case of link or switch failure. This technology is suitable for customers who need to deploy a pair of aggregation switches in the same closet, as it reduces the number of devices and links to manage, and provides high availability and scalability for the network.

The other options are incorrect because:

• B. The customer needs to simplify the deployment of core switches which are located in different closets for redundancy purposes. This scenario is not suitable for Aruba backplane stacking technology, as it requires the switches to be physically close to each other and connected with backplane cables. A better option for this scenario would be to use Aruba Virtual Switching Framework (VSF) technology, which allows up to twoswitches to be interconnected using standard Ethernet links, creating a virtual switch that can span across different closets or racks.
• C. The customer needs to expand the network and make it possible for the current core switches to support more MAC forwarding and ARP entries. This scenario is not suitable for Aruba backplane stacking technology, as it does not increase the MAC or ARP table size of the switches. The MAC and ARP table size is determined by the hardware specifications of each switch model, and stacking them together does not change that. A better option for this scenario would be to upgrade the core switches to a higher-end model that supports more MAC and ARP entries, or to segment the network into smaller subnets to reduce the MAC and ARP traffic.
• D. The customer needs to deploy a switch at a branch office and have the switch automatically discover and join the network stack at the main office. This scenario is not suitable for Aruba backplane stacking technology, as it requires the switches to be on the same LAN and connected with backplane cables. A better option for this scenario would be to use Aruba Central, which is a cloud-based management platform that allows remote provisioning and monitoring of Aruba switches and other devices. Aruba Central can automatically discover and join the switch to the network, and apply the configuration and policies from the main office.

References:

• Aruba 2930M Switch Series - Data sheet)
• ArubaOS-Switch Virtual Switching Framework - Configuration guide)
• Aruba Central - Data sheet)

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.