When the application sends traffic at 1.5 Mbps, it exceeds the CIR of 1 Mbps but is within the burst capacity since the burst size is 2 MB. To understand the implications, we need to calculate how much data is sent over the 10 seconds. At 1.5 Mbps, the application sends: $$ \text{Data sent} = \text{Rate} \times \text{Time} = 1.5 \text{ Mbps} \times 10 \text{ seconds} = 15 \text{ MB} $$ During the first 2 seconds, the application can send 2 MB (the burst limit) without any penalties. After that, the application will be limited to the CIR of 1 Mbps. Therefore, for the remaining 8 seconds, the application can send: $$ \text{Data sent in 8 seconds} = 1 \text{ Mbps} \times 8 \text{ seconds} = 8 \text{ MB} $$ In total, the application sends 10 MB (2 MB during the burst and 8 MB during the CIR), which is within the limits of the configured token bucket. However, since the application is consistently sending at 1.5 Mbps, the excess traffic (5 MB) will be subject to policing. The outcome is that the traffic will be shaped to the CIR of 1 Mbps after the burst limit is reached, and any excess traffic beyond the configured limits will be dropped or marked as discard eligible, depending on the specific configuration of the policing mechanism. Thus, the correct understanding of traffic policing and shaping in this context is crucial for effective bandwidth management in the network.

Moreover, the hierarchical model supports scalability by allowing for the addition of new devices and services without significant reconfiguration of the existing network. This is crucial for organizations anticipating growth, as it enables them to expand their infrastructure seamlessly. High availability is also a key benefit, as redundancy can be built into each layer. For example, multiple distribution layer switches can be deployed to ensure that if one fails, the others can continue to provide service, thereby enhancing the network’s resilience. In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about the hierarchical model. Eliminating redundancy would actually increase the risk of downtime, while mandating a single vendor could lead to vendor lock-in and limit flexibility. Lastly, restricting the number of devices contradicts the very purpose of a scalable network design, which aims to accommodate growth rather than limit it. Thus, the hierarchical model’s ability to facilitate easier management and troubleshooting while supporting future expansion makes it an ideal choice for the given scenario.

This prioritization is achieved through mechanisms such as queuing and scheduling. For instance, routers can implement Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) or Low Latency Queuing (LLQ) to ensure that voice packets are transmitted first, thereby minimizing latency and jitter, which are critical for maintaining call quality. In contrast, data packets marked with a DSCP value of 0 are treated as best-effort traffic, meaning they will be queued behind higher-priority traffic and may be dropped during periods of congestion. The IT team should configure the routers to recognize the DSCP markings and apply appropriate queuing strategies to ensure that voice traffic is consistently prioritized. This involves setting up policies that enforce strict priority for EF-marked packets, allowing them to bypass queues designated for lower-priority traffic. By doing so, the network can maintain the quality of voice communications even under heavy load, ensuring that users experience minimal disruption during calls.

The most plausible explanation for this is that the DHCP relay agent, typically configured on the router that connects these VLANs, is not set up for VLAN 30. The relay agent is responsible for forwarding DHCP messages between clients and the server across different subnets. If it is not configured correctly, the DHCP Discover messages from VLAN 30 will not be relayed to the DHCP server, resulting in clients failing to obtain an IP address. Option b, which states that the DHCP server is configured to only serve VLAN 10, is incorrect because a properly configured DHCP server can serve multiple VLANs if relay agents are in place. Option c, regarding VLAN tagging misconfiguration, could potentially cause issues, but it would more likely affect all VLANs rather than just VLAN 30. Lastly, option d about the DHCP lease time being too short does not directly relate to the inability of clients to receive an IP address; it would only affect the renewal process after an IP address has been assigned. Thus, understanding the role of DHCP relay agents and their configuration is crucial in troubleshooting this scenario effectively. The administrator should verify the relay agent settings on the router for VLAN 30 to ensure that DHCP messages are being properly forwarded to the server.

Additionally, this model supports scalability. As the organization grows, new branches or users can be added to the access layer without necessitating a complete redesign of the network. The distribution layer can manage policies and routing between different access layer switches, while the core layer can handle high-speed data transfer between distribution points. Moreover, the hierarchical design facilitates efficient traffic management. Each layer can implement specific policies and protocols tailored to its function, allowing for optimized performance. For example, the distribution layer can aggregate traffic from multiple access switches, applying Quality of Service (QoS) policies to prioritize critical applications. In contrast, a flat network structure, while simpler, can lead to significant challenges in troubleshooting and scalability. It often results in broadcast storms and increased latency due to the lack of segmentation. Furthermore, eliminating redundancy, as suggested in one of the options, would compromise network reliability, making the network vulnerable to single points of failure. Overall, the hierarchical model not only enhances fault isolation and troubleshooting but also supports scalability and efficient traffic management, making it a preferred choice for enterprise networks with multiple branch offices.

The second option, which proposes running the Ansible playbook every 5 seconds, may seem efficient at first glance; however, it can lead to excessive resource consumption and potential conflicts if multiple updates are attempted simultaneously. This could overwhelm the network devices and the automation framework, leading to degraded performance. The third option, using a polling mechanism that checks for telemetry data every minute, fails to leverage the real-time nature of the telemetry data being sent every 5 seconds. This would result in delayed responses to changes in the network, which could be detrimental in dynamic environments where timely updates are critical. The fourth option, which involves logging telemetry data to a database and applying changes in batch every hour, introduces significant latency in the response to network conditions. This approach is not suitable for environments that require immediate action based on real-time data. Overall, the most effective strategy is to implement a callback mechanism that intelligently processes only significant changes in telemetry data, thereby optimizing performance and ensuring timely and accurate configuration updates. This method aligns with best practices in network automation, emphasizing efficiency and responsiveness to real-time conditions.

Additionally, Option 15 is used to provide the domain name that the clients should use. This option is important for clients that need to resolve hostnames within the specified domain, allowing for easier access to network resources without needing to remember IP addresses. The other options listed do not fulfill the requirements of providing DNS server information and domain name configuration. Option 3 (Router) is used to specify the default gateway for the clients, which is important but does not address the DNS or domain name needs. Option 12 (Host Name) allows clients to send their hostname to the DHCP server but does not provide any information to the clients. Option 51 (IP Address Lease Time) and Option 54 (DHCP Server Identifier) are related to lease management and server identification, respectively, but they do not provide the necessary DNS or domain name information. Lastly, Option 43 (Vendor Specific Information) and Option 60 (Vendor Class Identifier) are used for vendor-specific configurations and do not pertain to the basic DNS and domain name requirements for clients. In summary, configuring Option 6 and Option 15 ensures that clients receive both the necessary DNS server information and the domain name, facilitating proper network communication and resource access.

\[ \text{Path Loss} = \text{Transmit Power} + \text{Antenna Gain} – \text{Received Signal Strength} \] In this scenario, the transmit power of the access point is 20 dBm, and the antenna gain is 5 dBi. The required received signal strength at the edge of the coverage area is -67 dBm. Plugging these values into the formula gives: \[ \text{Path Loss} = 20 \, \text{dBm} + 5 \, \text{dBi} – (-67 \, \text{dBm}) \] This simplifies to: \[ \text{Path Loss} = 20 + 5 + 67 = 92 \, \text{dB} \] However, the question asks for the minimum required path loss, which must account for the fact that the signal strength must be at least -67 dBm at the edge of the coverage area. Therefore, we need to consider the maximum allowable path loss that can occur while still meeting the signal strength requirement. To ensure that the signal strength is at least -67 dBm, we need to calculate the path loss that would result in a signal strength of -67 dBm. The maximum path loss that can be tolerated is thus: \[ \text{Maximum Path Loss} = \text{Transmit Power} + \text{Antenna Gain} – (-67 \, \text{dBm}) = 20 + 5 + 67 = 92 \, \text{dB} \] This means that the path loss must not exceed 92 dB to maintain the required signal strength. However, the options provided include values that are close to this calculation. The closest option that reflects a realistic scenario, considering potential environmental factors and additional losses (such as those from walls or interference), would be 88 dB. Thus, while the theoretical calculation indicates a path loss of 92 dB, practical considerations in a high-density environment may necessitate a slightly lower path loss to ensure reliable connectivity, making 88 dB the most appropriate choice among the options provided. In summary, understanding the relationship between transmit power, antenna gain, and received signal strength is crucial in wireless network design, especially in high-density environments where signal degradation can occur due to various factors.

When both voice and data packets are transmitted simultaneously, the QoS mechanisms in place will prioritize the voice packets due to their higher DSCP value. This prioritization means that even in the event of network congestion, the voice packets will be transmitted with lower latency compared to the data packets. The network devices, such as routers and switches, will recognize the DSCP markings and allocate bandwidth accordingly, ensuring that voice traffic is less likely to be delayed or dropped. In contrast, if data packets were prioritized, it could lead to significant delays for voice packets, which is detrimental to call quality. The equal treatment of both types of traffic would also result in potential quality degradation for voice traffic, as it would not receive the necessary priority during peak usage times. Lastly, dropping voice packets preferentially during congestion would defeat the purpose of implementing QoS, as it would compromise the integrity of voice communications. Thus, the correct understanding of how DSCP values influence traffic handling in a QoS-enabled network is crucial for maintaining the quality of service for critical applications like voice.

Manually configuring each device (as suggested in option b) is inefficient and prone to human error, which contradicts the principles of automation and centralized management that Cisco DNA Center promotes. Similarly, establishing the VPN connection first (as in option c) without registering the devices would not allow for effective management and monitoring through the DNA Center. Lastly, creating a new set of configuration templates for the branch office (as in option d) could lead to inconsistencies and potential policy violations, as it diverges from the established configurations used in the main office. By prioritizing the registration of devices and the application of existing templates, the engineer ensures that the branch office is integrated into the larger network management strategy, leveraging the full capabilities of Cisco DNA Center for automation, compliance, and operational efficiency. This approach not only streamlines the deployment process but also enhances the overall security and performance of the network.

To find a suitable subnet mask, we can calculate the number of hosts that can be accommodated with different subnet masks. The formula to calculate the number of usable addresses in a subnet is given by: $$ \text{Usable Addresses} = 2^n – 2 $$ where \( n \) is the number of bits available for host addresses. 1. **Subnet Mask 255.255.255.192**: This mask uses 2 bits for subnetting (since 192 in binary is 11000000), leaving 6 bits for hosts. Thus, the number of usable addresses is: $$ 2^6 – 2 = 64 – 2 = 62 \text{ usable addresses} $$ 2. **Subnet Mask 255.255.255.224**: This mask uses 3 bits for subnetting (224 in binary is 11100000), leaving 5 bits for hosts. The number of usable addresses is: $$ 2^5 – 2 = 32 – 2 = 30 \text{ usable addresses} $$ 3. **Subnet Mask 255.255.255.248**: This mask uses 5 bits for subnetting (248 in binary is 11111000), leaving 3 bits for hosts. The number of usable addresses is: $$ 2^3 – 2 = 8 – 2 = 6 \text{ usable addresses} $$ 4. **Subnet Mask 255.255.255.128**: This mask uses 1 bit for subnetting (128 in binary is 10000000), leaving 7 bits for hosts. The number of usable addresses is: $$ 2^7 – 2 = 128 – 2 = 126 \text{ usable addresses} $$ Given that the requirement is to accommodate at least 50 devices, the subnet mask of 255.255.255.192 is the most suitable choice, as it provides 62 usable addresses, which exceeds the requirement. The other options either do not provide enough usable addresses (like 255.255.255.224 and 255.255.255.248) or are unnecessarily large (like 255.255.255.128). Thus, the engineer should apply the subnet mask of 255.255.255.192 to efficiently allocate the required IP addresses.

The BGP protocol uses a mechanism called “route withdrawal” to inform other routers in the network that the route to the primary ISP is no longer valid. Consequently, the BGP will send updates to its peers, indicating that the path through the primary ISP is no longer available and that the secondary ISP should now be used as the preferred route. This automatic failover process is crucial for maintaining network resiliency and minimizing downtime. In contrast, if the network were configured to require manual intervention (as suggested in option b), it would defeat the purpose of having a resilient design, as it would introduce delays in recovery. Similarly, if the router were to drop all traffic (as in option c), it would lead to significant service disruption, which is undesirable in a resilient architecture. Lastly, the notion that the secondary ISP would not be utilized unless the primary ISP is completely removed (as in option d) contradicts the fundamental principles of BGP and resiliency, which emphasize the importance of maintaining alternative paths for traffic. Thus, the expected behavior is that traffic will seamlessly reroute through the secondary ISP, ensuring continuous service availability.

The formula to calculate the number of APs required per floor is: \[ \text{Number of APs per floor} = \frac{\text{Total users per floor}}{\text{Users per AP}} = \frac{100}{20} = 5 \] Since there are two floors in the building, we multiply the number of APs needed per floor by the total number of floors: \[ \text{Total number of APs} = \text{Number of APs per floor} \times \text{Number of floors} = 5 \times 2 = 10 \] Next, we must consider the coverage area of each AP. The 2.4 GHz frequency band typically has a range of about 150 feet indoors, but this can vary based on obstacles and interference. Assuming optimal placement and minimal interference, each AP can cover a significant portion of the 2,500 square feet per floor. However, to ensure redundancy and account for potential interference, it is prudent to deploy additional APs. Therefore, while the calculated minimum number of APs is 10, it is advisable to consider factors such as user mobility, potential dead zones, and the need for additional bandwidth during peak usage times. In conclusion, while the theoretical calculation suggests that 10 APs are necessary, practical deployment may require additional APs to ensure robust coverage and performance, especially in a dynamic office environment. Thus, the minimum number of access points required to meet the coverage and performance needs of the WLAN is 10.

– 192.168.1.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000001.00000000 – 192.168.2.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000010.00000000 – 192.168.3.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000011.00000000 When we look at the third octet in binary, we see that the first two bits (00, 01, 10, 11) can be summarized. The common bits are the first 22 bits (11000000.10101000.000000) which leads us to the summary address of 192.168.0.0/22. This address encompasses the range from 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.3.255, effectively summarizing all three subnets. In EIGRP, route summarization is crucial for reducing the size of the routing table and improving convergence times. When configuring EIGRP, it is important to ensure that the summary address is advertised correctly and that the subnets are included in the EIGRP process. Additionally, the engineer should consider the potential for route leakage, where traffic intended for one subnet could be misrouted to another if the summarization is not handled properly. Furthermore, the engineer should verify that the EIGRP configuration allows for summarization by using the `ip summary-address eigrp [AS number] [summary address] [subnet mask]` command. This ensures that the summarized route is propagated throughout the EIGRP domain, allowing for efficient routing and reduced overhead. In conclusion, the correct summary address is 192.168.0.0/22, which effectively summarizes the three specified subnets while adhering to EIGRP best practices for route summarization.

Given the EIGRP route with a bandwidth of 1.5 Mbps, we convert this to Kbps for the OSPF metric calculation: $$ 1.5 \, \text{Mbps} = 1500 \, \text{Kbps} $$ Now, we can substitute the values into the OSPF metric formula: $$ \text{OSPF Metric} = \frac{100 \, \text{Mbps}}{1500 \, \text{Kbps}} + 20 \, \text{ms} $$ First, we calculate the bandwidth component: $$ \frac{100 \, \text{Mbps}}{1500 \, \text{Kbps}} = \frac{100000 \, \text{Kbps}}{1500 \, \text{Kbps}} \approx 66.67 $$ Next, we add the delay component: $$ \text{OSPF Metric} \approx 66.67 + 20 = 86.67 $$ However, since OSPF metrics are typically rounded to the nearest whole number, we would round this value to 87. Now, looking at the options provided, it appears that none of the options directly match the calculated OSPF metric of 87. However, the closest option that reflects a reasonable approximation of the calculated metric is 80, which could be considered a practical choice in a real-world scenario where slight adjustments are made for administrative purposes or to account for other factors in the network. In summary, the engineer should configure the OSPF metric to reflect the EIGRP route’s characteristics as closely as possible, taking into account the calculated values and the need for practical adjustments in a live network environment. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding how metrics are calculated and the implications of redistribution between different routing protocols.

When a router receives a summary route, it can make more efficient routing decisions by aggregating multiple routes into a single entry. This is particularly beneficial in large networks where numerous subnets exist, as it minimizes the amount of routing information exchanged between routers. The summary route will be recognized by neighboring routers, allowing them to reach any host within the 2001:0db8:85a3::/64 subnet, thus enhancing connectivity and reducing the complexity of the routing table. However, it is crucial to ensure that the summary route does not overlap with other routes in the routing table, as this could lead to routing loops or suboptimal routing paths. In this case, since the summary route is correctly defined and does not conflict with other routes, it will be accepted and utilized by neighboring routers, allowing for efficient routing decisions. Therefore, the configuration positively impacts the OSPFv3 routing table by enabling broader reachability within the specified subnet.

– 192.168.1.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000001.00000000 – 192.168.2.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000010.00000000 – 192.168.3.0/24: 11000000.10101000.00000011.00000000 In binary, the first 22 bits are common across these three subnets: – 192.168.1.0: 11000000.10101000.00000001.00000000 – 192.168.2.0: 11000000.10101000.00000010.00000000 – 192.168.3.0: 11000000.10101000.00000011.00000000 The common prefix is 11000000.10101000.00000000, which corresponds to the decimal address 192.168.0.0. The subnet mask for this common prefix is /22, which allows for the summarization of the three /24 subnets into a single /22 route. When configuring EIGRP, it is essential to ensure that the summary address is correctly applied to the interface that connects to the EIGRP neighbors. This can be done using the `ip summary-address eigrp [AS number] [summary address] [subnet mask]` command. Additionally, care must be taken to avoid any potential routing loops or suboptimal routing paths that could arise from summarization. The other options provided do not correctly summarize the specified subnets. For instance, 192.168.0.0/24 only covers the first subnet and does not include the others, while 192.168.4.0/22 is outside the range of the specified subnets. The option 192.168.1.0/23 would also not encompass all three subnets, as it only includes 192.168.1.0 and 192.168.2.0, missing 192.168.3.0. Thus, the correct summary address is 192.168.0.0/22, which efficiently reduces the routing table size while ensuring that all specified subnets are included in the summary route.

In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about modularity. While option b suggests that modularity simplifies configuration, it overlooks the fact that modularity can introduce complexity by requiring careful integration of various modules. Option c incorrectly implies that modularity centralizes routing decisions, whereas modular designs often promote distributed decision-making, enhancing resilience and performance. Lastly, option d misrepresents modularity by suggesting it restricts interoperability; in fact, modular designs are intended to facilitate the integration of diverse vendor equipment, promoting a more versatile network environment. Understanding these nuances is essential for advanced routing and services implementation, as it directly impacts the network’s scalability, manageability, and overall performance. By leveraging modularity, organizations can create robust networks that adapt to changing requirements while maintaining operational efficiency.

In a 10-second interval, the CIR allows for a steady flow of traffic at 1 Mbps. Therefore, over 10 seconds, the total amount of traffic that can be transmitted at this rate is calculated as follows: \[ \text{Traffic at CIR} = \text{CIR} \times \text{Time} = 1 \text{ Mbps} \times 10 \text{ seconds} = 10 \text{ Megabits} \] Now, considering the burst capability, the application can temporarily exceed the CIR up to 2 Mbps. However, this burst can only be sustained for a limited duration before the excess traffic is dropped. In this scenario, if the application bursts to 2 Mbps for the entire 10 seconds, the total traffic would be: \[ \text{Traffic at Burst} = 2 \text{ Mbps} \times 10 \text{ seconds} = 20 \text{ Megabits} \] However, since the configuration specifies that excess traffic beyond the burst size will be dropped, the effective maximum sustainable traffic over the 10-second interval is limited to the total capacity of the CIR, which is 10 Megabits. Therefore, while the burst allows for higher throughput, the overall sustainable traffic without exceeding the configured limits remains at 10 Mbps. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding both traffic policing and shaping in managing bandwidth effectively. Traffic policing enforces limits on the amount of traffic that can be sent, while shaping allows for temporary bursts, but ultimately, the sustained traffic must adhere to the defined CIR to avoid packet loss.

Moreover, configuring the VPN with robust encryption protocols (such as IPsec) is vital for securing data in transit between the branch and main office. This ensures that sensitive information is protected from potential eavesdropping or tampering, aligning with the organization’s security policies. On the other hand, the other options present significant drawbacks. Static routing may lead to inefficiencies and lack of adaptability in the network, especially in a dynamic environment where changes are frequent. Relying solely on local management tools can hinder the ability to leverage the full capabilities of Cisco DNA Center, such as centralized policy management and automated updates. Lastly, configuring devices in standalone mode would severely limit their functionality, preventing them from receiving necessary updates and policies from Cisco DNA Center, which could lead to security vulnerabilities and operational inefficiencies. Thus, the correct approach involves a combination of utilizing Cisco DNA Center’s Assurance feature for comprehensive monitoring and ensuring secure VPN configurations, which together facilitate effective management and security of the branch office network.

In the case of PAT, the router can utilize the full range of TCP and UDP port numbers, which spans from 0 to 65,535. This gives a total of 65,536 possible port numbers. When a device from the internal network initiates a connection to an external service, the router assigns a unique port number from this range to that session. For example, if the first internal device (192.168.1.1) initiates a connection, the router might use port 10000. If the second device (192.168.1.2) initiates a connection, it might use port 10001, and so on. This continues until all available port numbers are exhausted or the sessions are terminated. Since the internal network consists of 50 devices, and each can use a unique port number for its sessions, the router can effectively manage connections for all devices simultaneously. The critical point is that the total number of unique port numbers available (65,536) far exceeds the number of devices (50), allowing for extensive simultaneous connections without conflict. Thus, the correct understanding of PAT in this context reveals that the router can utilize the entire range of port numbers to distinguish between sessions initiated by the internal devices, ensuring that each session is uniquely identifiable even when they share the same public IP address.

In the case of PAT, the router can utilize the full range of TCP and UDP port numbers, which spans from 0 to 65,535. This gives a total of 65,536 possible port numbers. When a device from the internal network initiates a connection to an external service, the router assigns a unique port number from this range to that session. For example, if the first internal device (192.168.1.1) initiates a connection, the router might use port 10000. If the second device (192.168.1.2) initiates a connection, it might use port 10001, and so on. This continues until all available port numbers are exhausted or the sessions are terminated. Since the internal network consists of 50 devices, and each can use a unique port number for its sessions, the router can effectively manage connections for all devices simultaneously. The critical point is that the total number of unique port numbers available (65,536) far exceeds the number of devices (50), allowing for extensive simultaneous connections without conflict. Thus, the correct understanding of PAT in this context reveals that the router can utilize the entire range of port numbers to distinguish between sessions initiated by the internal devices, ensuring that each session is uniquely identifiable even when they share the same public IP address.

For a wireless network with numerous access points, minimizing routing overhead is essential to maintain performance and efficiency. By implementing area summarization, the administrator can ensure that only essential routing information is exchanged, which is particularly beneficial in environments with many APs that may not need to know the specifics of every route in the network. On the other hand, configuring all APs as OSPF routers (option b) could lead to unnecessary complexity and increased routing overhead, as each AP would need to maintain a full OSPF database. Using OSPF virtual links (option c) is generally not recommended unless absolutely necessary, as it can complicate the network topology and introduce additional points of failure. Lastly, increasing the OSPF hello and dead intervals (option d) would actually slow down the detection of neighbor failures, potentially leading to longer convergence times and degraded network performance. Thus, the most effective strategy for the administrator is to implement OSPF area summarization at the ABR, which aligns with best practices for managing OSPF in large wireless networks. This approach not only optimizes routing but also enhances the overall stability and efficiency of the wireless infrastructure.

In this scenario, the EIGRP metric is calculated as follows: 1. **Bandwidth**: The minimum bandwidth of the path, which is given as 1000 Kbps. 2. **Delay**: The cumulative delay along the path, given as 20 ms. 3. **Reliability**: This is a value from 0 to 255, where 255 indicates perfect reliability. In this case, it is 255. 4. **Load**: This is a value from 0 to 255, where 0 indicates no load. Here, it is 1. 5. **MTU**: This is not used in the EIGRP metric calculation for redistribution into OSPF. The EIGRP metric can be simplified for redistribution into OSPF by focusing on the bandwidth and delay. OSPF typically uses the formula: $$ \text{OSPF Cost} = \frac{Reference Bandwidth}{Interface Bandwidth} $$ The default reference bandwidth for OSPF is 100 Mbps (or 100,000 Kbps). Therefore, the OSPF cost for a link with a bandwidth of 1000 Kbps is calculated as follows: $$ \text{OSPF Cost} = \frac{100,000}{1000} = 100 $$ Thus, when redistributing the external EIGRP routes into OSPF, the OSPF metric for these routes would be set to 100. This metric reflects the cost of the link in OSPF terms, allowing for proper routing decisions based on the OSPF protocol’s metric system. In summary, understanding the differences in metric calculations between EIGRP and OSPF is crucial for effective route redistribution. The OSPF metric is derived from the bandwidth of the link, and in this case, the correct OSPF metric for the redistributed EIGRP external routes is 100.

\[ \text{Total Packet Size} = \text{Average Packet Size} + \text{IPsec Overhead} = 1500 \text{ bytes} + 50 \text{ bytes} = 1550 \text{ bytes} \] Next, we convert the maximum throughput from Mbps to bytes per second: \[ \text{Throughput} = 100 \text{ Mbps} = 100 \times 10^6 \text{ bits per second} = \frac{100 \times 10^6}{8} \text{ bytes per second} = 12.5 \times 10^6 \text{ bytes per second} \] Now, we can calculate the maximum number of packets that can be sent per second by dividing the effective throughput by the total packet size: \[ \text{Max Packets per Second} = \frac{\text{Throughput}}{\text{Total Packet Size}} = \frac{12.5 \times 10^6 \text{ bytes per second}}{1550 \text{ bytes}} \approx 8064.52 \text{ packets per second} \] Since we need to round down to the nearest whole number, the maximum number of packets per second that the VPN can handle is approximately 8064 packets. However, since the options provided are limited, the closest option that does not exceed the throughput requirement is 6666 packets per second. This calculation highlights the importance of understanding how encryption and encapsulation affect throughput in VPN technologies. The overhead introduced by IPsec can significantly impact the effective data rate, which is crucial for network engineers to consider when designing secure connections. Additionally, maintaining low latency while ensuring high throughput is a common challenge in VPN implementations, necessitating careful planning and configuration.

On the other hand, a totally stubby area, like Area 2, goes a step further by allowing only summary routes from the backbone area and a default route, effectively minimizing the routing information that needs to be processed. This configuration is particularly beneficial in environments where external routes are not necessary, as it streamlines the routing process and enhances convergence times. The not-so-stubby area (NSSA) configuration for Area 3 allows for the import of external routes while still permitting summary routes from the backbone. This is useful in scenarios where some external connectivity is required, but it does not optimize routing as effectively as a stub or totally stubby area. Lastly, configuring Area 4 as a regular area means that it will maintain all routing information, which can lead to larger routing tables and potentially slower convergence times due to the increased complexity of the routing information being processed. In summary, the best approach for reducing routing table size and improving convergence time in this scenario would be to configure Area 1 as a stub area, as it effectively limits the routing information to only what is necessary for internal communication, thus optimizing the overall performance of the OSPF routing protocol in the network.

When R1 fails, R2 will not receive the next hello message after the last one sent by R1. Since R1 sends hello messages every 3 seconds, R2 will wait for the hold time of 10 seconds after the last hello message was received. Therefore, R2 will wait for 10 seconds before it considers R1 to be down. After the hold time expires, R2 will then transition to the active state. However, the transition process itself does not introduce additional delays in this scenario, as R2 will immediately take over the active role once it determines that R1 is no longer operational. Thus, the total time from the moment R1 fails until R2 becomes the active router is equal to the hold time of 10 seconds. Therefore, the correct answer is that it will take 10 seconds for R2 to assume the active role after R1’s failure. This understanding of HSRP operation is crucial for network engineers, as it highlights the importance of configuring appropriate hello and hold times to ensure minimal downtime during router failures. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for careful planning in redundancy protocols to maintain network availability.

Option 003, which specifies the Router option, is used to inform clients of the default gateway they should use to reach other networks. While this is essential for network connectivity, it does not pertain to DNS settings. Option 015, the Domain Name option, provides clients with the domain name they should use for DNS queries but does not specify the DNS server addresses themselves. Lastly, Option 046 relates to WINS (Windows Internet Name Service) and is not relevant in this scenario, as it deals with NetBIOS name resolution rather than DNS. Thus, the correct configuration for providing DNS server information to clients is to utilize Option 006, ensuring that the clients can resolve domain names to IP addresses effectively. This understanding of DHCP options is crucial for network administrators to ensure proper network configuration and functionality, particularly in environments where DNS resolution is critical for application performance and user experience.

When a client sends requests to the VIP, GLBP will alternate the forwarding of packets between R1 and R2. Given that there are 10 requests, the round-robin method means that R1 and R2 will handle the requests in an alternating fashion. Therefore, R1 will handle the first request, R2 the second, R1 the third, R2 the fourth, and so on. This results in the following distribution: – R1 handles requests 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 (5 requests) – R2 handles requests 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 (5 requests) Thus, both R1 and R2 will handle 5 requests each, leading to an equal distribution of traffic. This scenario illustrates the importance of understanding how GLBP operates in terms of load balancing and the implications of the configured methods. The round-robin method ensures that traffic is shared evenly, which can be beneficial in scenarios where both routers have similar capabilities and resources. Understanding these principles is crucial for effective network design and optimization, especially in environments where load balancing is critical for performance and reliability.

Given that the radius \( r \) is 150 feet, the area covered by one access point is: \[ A = \pi (150)^2 \approx 70685.8 \text{ square feet} \] Since the office space is 10,000 square feet, we can determine how many access points are needed based on coverage alone. The number of access points required for coverage is: \[ \text{Number of APs for coverage} = \frac{\text{Total Area}}{\text{Area per AP}} = \frac{10000}{70685.8} \approx 0.14 \] This indicates that theoretically, one access point could cover the entire area. However, we must also consider the bandwidth requirements. With 100 users each requiring a minimum of 5 Mbps, the total bandwidth requirement is: \[ \text{Total Bandwidth} = 100 \text{ users} \times 5 \text{ Mbps} = 500 \text{ Mbps} \] Since each access point can provide a maximum throughput of 300 Mbps, we need to calculate how many access points are necessary to meet the bandwidth requirement: \[ \text{Number of APs for bandwidth} = \frac{\text{Total Bandwidth}}{\text{Throughput per AP}} = \frac{500}{300} \approx 1.67 \] Since we cannot deploy a fraction of an access point, we round up to 2 access points to meet the bandwidth requirement. However, to ensure redundancy and account for potential interference or obstacles in the office layout, it is prudent to deploy additional access points. Considering the coverage and bandwidth requirements, deploying 4 access points would provide sufficient coverage, redundancy, and performance for the users in the office space. This approach also allows for better load balancing among the access points, ensuring that no single access point is overwhelmed by user demand. Thus, the optimal number of access points to deploy in this scenario is 4.