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)

 A metal firewall is a significant RF obstacle that can be difficult to see visually and might require access to blueprints. A metal firewall is a type of fire-resistant barrier that is made of metal or metal-clad materials and is used to separate different sections of a building or a network. A metal firewall can block or attenuate RF signals that pass through it, causing coverage gaps, signal degradation, or interference in the wireless deployment. A metal firewall can also reflect RF signals, creating multipath fading or distortion in the wireless environment. Therefore, an architect needs to identify the location and thickness of any metal firewalls in the building and account for their impact on the RF design. A metal firewall may require additional access points, antennas, or cabling to provide adequate coverage and performance across the wireless deployment. A metal firewall may also affect the channel planning, transmit power settings, and antenna orientation of the access points and radios. A metal firewall can be difficult to see visually, as it may be hidden behind walls, ceilings, or floors, or blended with other materials.Therefore, an architect might need access to blueprints or other sources of information to locate and measure any metal firewalls in the building. References:

• RF Design | Validated Solution Guide - Aruba
• Managing and Optimizing RF Spectrum for Aruba WLANs | PDF - SlideShare
• RF Optimization - Aruba
• Advanced RF Design & Troubleshooting | PPT - SlideShare

 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