1. **Distance Loss Calculation**: The signal strength decreases with distance. The free-space path loss (FSPL) can be approximated using the formula: $$ \text{FSPL} = 20 \log_{10}(d) + 20 \log_{10}(f) + 32.44 $$ where \( d \) is the distance in kilometers and \( f \) is the frequency in MHz. However, for simplicity, we can use a rule of thumb that states that signal strength decreases by approximately 6 dB for every doubling of distance in free space. The distance from the AP to the farthest point is 100 feet, which is approximately 30.48 meters. The distance loss can be approximated as: $$ \text{Distance Loss} \approx 20 \log_{10}(100) \approx 40 \text{ dB} $$ 2. **Wall Loss Calculation**: Each wall introduces a loss of approximately 3 dB. With three walls, the total wall loss is: $$ \text{Wall Loss} = 3 \text{ walls} \times 3 \text{ dB/wall} = 9 \text{ dB} $$ 3. **Total Loss Calculation**: The total loss from distance and walls is: $$ \text{Total Loss} = \text{Distance Loss} + \text{Wall Loss} = 40 \text{ dB} + 9 \text{ dB} = 49 \text{ dB} $$ 4. **Effective Signal Strength**: The effective signal strength at the farthest point is: $$ \text{Effective Signal Strength} = \text{Initial Signal Strength} – \text{Total Loss} $$ $$ = 20 \text{ dBm} – 49 \text{ dB} = -29 \text{ dBm} $$ This effective signal strength of -29 dBm is well above the minimum required signal strength of -67 dBm, indicating that one access point could theoretically cover the area. However, to ensure redundancy and account for potential interference, it is prudent to deploy multiple access points. 5. **Coverage Calculation**: Given the office space of 10,000 square feet and the effective coverage area of one AP, which can be estimated based on the signal strength and layout, it is reasonable to assume that each AP can effectively cover around 2,500 square feet under optimal conditions. Thus, the number of access points required can be calculated as: $$ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{\text{Total Area}}{\text{Area per AP}} = \frac{10,000 \text{ sq ft}}{2,500 \text{ sq ft/AP}} = 4 $$ Therefore, deploying four access points would ensure adequate coverage and signal strength throughout the office space, accommodating the layout and potential obstacles.

1. **Distance Loss Calculation**: The signal strength decreases with distance. The free-space path loss (FSPL) can be approximated using the formula: $$ \text{FSPL} = 20 \log_{10}(d) + 20 \log_{10}(f) + 32.44 $$ where \( d \) is the distance in kilometers and \( f \) is the frequency in MHz. However, for simplicity, we can use a rule of thumb that states that signal strength decreases by approximately 6 dB for every doubling of distance in free space. The distance from the AP to the farthest point is 100 feet, which is approximately 30.48 meters. The distance loss can be approximated as: $$ \text{Distance Loss} \approx 20 \log_{10}(100) \approx 40 \text{ dB} $$ 2. **Wall Loss Calculation**: Each wall introduces a loss of approximately 3 dB. With three walls, the total wall loss is: $$ \text{Wall Loss} = 3 \text{ walls} \times 3 \text{ dB/wall} = 9 \text{ dB} $$ 3. **Total Loss Calculation**: The total loss from distance and walls is: $$ \text{Total Loss} = \text{Distance Loss} + \text{Wall Loss} = 40 \text{ dB} + 9 \text{ dB} = 49 \text{ dB} $$ 4. **Effective Signal Strength**: The effective signal strength at the farthest point is: $$ \text{Effective Signal Strength} = \text{Initial Signal Strength} – \text{Total Loss} $$ $$ = 20 \text{ dBm} – 49 \text{ dB} = -29 \text{ dBm} $$ This effective signal strength of -29 dBm is well above the minimum required signal strength of -67 dBm, indicating that one access point could theoretically cover the area. However, to ensure redundancy and account for potential interference, it is prudent to deploy multiple access points. 5. **Coverage Calculation**: Given the office space of 10,000 square feet and the effective coverage area of one AP, which can be estimated based on the signal strength and layout, it is reasonable to assume that each AP can effectively cover around 2,500 square feet under optimal conditions. Thus, the number of access points required can be calculated as: $$ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{\text{Total Area}}{\text{Area per AP}} = \frac{10,000 \text{ sq ft}}{2,500 \text{ sq ft/AP}} = 4 $$ Therefore, deploying four access points would ensure adequate coverage and signal strength throughout the office space, accommodating the layout and potential obstacles.

In contrast, the second option of sending an email without detailed explanations may lead to misunderstandings and distrust among stakeholders, as they might feel blindsided by the increase. The third option of delaying communication until project completion is highly risky; it could result in stakeholders feeling misled or unprepared for the final outcome, especially if the project exceeds its budget significantly. Lastly, the fourth option of suggesting feature cuts without consulting stakeholders undermines collaborative decision-making and could lead to dissatisfaction with the final product, as stakeholders may have different priorities regarding project features. Overall, the most effective approach is to communicate openly and provide stakeholders with the necessary context to understand the situation, thereby maintaining their confidence in the project management process. This method not only addresses the immediate budgetary concerns but also reinforces the project manager’s role as a responsible leader who values stakeholder input and collaboration.

When configuring the Layer 3 switch, the administrator would create virtual interfaces (SVIs) for each VLAN. For instance, VLAN 10 would have an SVI with an IP address assigned, and similarly for VLAN 20. The switch would then be able to route packets between these VLANs based on the destination IP address. This method also allows for the implementation of access control lists (ACLs) to enforce security policies, ensuring that only authorized traffic is allowed between VLANs. In contrast, using a traditional router connected to the switch for inter-VLAN routing, while functional, introduces additional latency and complexity due to the need for physical connections and potential bottlenecks. Implementing a trunk link without routing configuration would not allow for inter-VLAN communication, as trunk links merely carry VLAN tags without performing any routing. Lastly, enabling port mirroring is primarily a monitoring tool and does not facilitate communication between VLANs, making it an ineffective choice for this scenario. Overall, the use of a Layer 3 switch for inter-VLAN routing is the most efficient and secure method, aligning with best practices in network design and management.

\[ 1 \text{ Gbps} = 1000 \text{ Mbps} \] Next, we calculate the bandwidth allocated to VoIP traffic, which is assigned 40% of the total bandwidth. To find this value, we multiply the total bandwidth by the percentage allocated to VoIP: \[ \text{VoIP Bandwidth} = 1000 \text{ Mbps} \times 0.40 = 400 \text{ Mbps} \] This calculation shows that VoIP traffic will receive a maximum of 400 Mbps. In contrast, video conferencing is assigned 30% of the total bandwidth, which can be calculated as: \[ \text{Video Conferencing Bandwidth} = 1000 \text{ Mbps} \times 0.30 = 300 \text{ Mbps} \] The remaining bandwidth for general web traffic can be calculated by subtracting the allocated bandwidth for VoIP and video conferencing from the total bandwidth: \[ \text{General Web Traffic Bandwidth} = 1000 \text{ Mbps} – (400 \text{ Mbps} + 300 \text{ Mbps}) = 300 \text{ Mbps} \] This scenario illustrates the importance of QoS in managing network resources effectively, ensuring that critical applications receive the necessary bandwidth while maintaining overall network performance. By prioritizing traffic based on application type, the IT department can enhance user experience and maintain service quality, especially for latency-sensitive applications like VoIP and video conferencing.

To find the number of hosts that can be supported by a subnet, we use the formula: $$ \text{Number of Hosts} = 2^{(32 – \text{Subnet Bits})} – 2 $$ The “-2” accounts for the network and broadcast addresses, which cannot be assigned to hosts. Starting with the requirement for at least 30 hosts, we need to find the smallest power of 2 that satisfies this condition: $$ 2^{(32 – \text{Subnet Bits})} – 2 \geq 30 $$ This simplifies to: $$ 2^{(32 – \text{Subnet Bits})} \geq 32 $$ Thus, we need at least 5 bits for the host portion (since $2^5 = 32$). Therefore, the subnet bits must be: $$ 32 – 5 = 27 $$ This means we need a subnet mask of /27, which corresponds to a decimal subnet mask of 255.255.255.224. Next, we calculate the number of subnets available with a /27 mask. The original /24 mask allows for 256 addresses (from 192.168.1.0 to 192.168.1.255). By using 3 bits for subnetting (since 27 – 24 = 3), we can create: $$ 2^3 = 8 \text{ subnets} $$ This meets the requirement of at least 5 subnets. Now, to find the range of the first subnet, we start with the network address of the first subnet, which is 192.168.1.0. The range of usable IP addresses in this subnet is from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.30, with 192.168.1.0 being the network address and 192.168.1.31 being the broadcast address. Thus, the correct subnet mask is 255.255.255.224, and the range of the first subnet is from 192.168.1.1 to 192.168.1.30.

A misconfigured subnet mask on the server’s interface can lead to communication problems. If the subnet mask is incorrectly set, the server may not recognize the correct range of IP addresses within its subnet, causing it to drop packets from devices that are actually within the same subnet. This can result in intermittent connectivity as the server may only respond to some requests while ignoring others. An incorrect static route on the router could also lead to connectivity issues. If the static route does not point to the correct next-hop address or if it is configured with the wrong subnet, packets destined for the server may be misrouted, leading to dropped connections. However, since the routes are present, this option is less likely than a misconfigured subnet mask. A malfunctioning network interface card (NIC) on the server could cause connectivity issues, but this would typically result in a complete loss of connectivity rather than intermittent issues. If the NIC were failing, the server would likely be unable to communicate at all. Lastly, a firewall rule blocking traffic to the server could also cause connectivity problems. However, if the firewall were blocking traffic, it would likely result in consistent connectivity issues rather than intermittent ones. Firewalls typically either allow or deny traffic based on rules, and if the rule is blocking traffic, it would not selectively allow some packets through. In summary, while all options present plausible scenarios, the most likely cause of intermittent connectivity issues in this context is a misconfigured subnet mask on the server’s interface, as it directly affects how the server perceives and interacts with the network.

To calculate the maximum traffic load for each segment, we can use the formula: \[ \text{Traffic per segment} = \frac{\text{Total traffic}}{\text{Number of segments}} \] Substituting the values from the scenario: \[ \text{Traffic per segment} = \frac{1200 \text{ Mbps}}{4} = 300 \text{ Mbps} \] This calculation shows that each of the 4 segments can handle a maximum traffic load of 300 Mbps. Understanding the implications of this division is crucial. If each segment is designed to handle 300 Mbps, it allows for efficient traffic management and reduces the risk of congestion within any single segment. This approach also facilitates easier troubleshooting and maintenance, as issues can be isolated to specific segments rather than affecting the entire network. The other options (250 Mbps, 350 Mbps, and 400 Mbps) do not accurately reflect the division of the total traffic load. For instance, if each segment were to handle 250 Mbps, the total would only account for 1000 Mbps, leaving unused capacity. Conversely, if each segment were to handle 350 Mbps or 400 Mbps, it would exceed the total capacity of 1200 Mbps, leading to potential network overload and performance degradation. Thus, the correct understanding of the divide and conquer strategy in this context not only involves the mathematical division of traffic but also the practical implications of network design and management.

To facilitate communication between these VLANs, inter-VLAN routing is necessary. This can be accomplished using a Layer 3 switch, which has the capability to route traffic between different VLANs. A Layer 3 switch operates at the network layer of the OSI model and can perform routing functions, allowing devices on different VLANs to communicate with each other while still maintaining the benefits of VLAN segmentation. Option b suggests configuring only 4 VLANs, which would not meet the requirement of having a separate VLAN for each department. Option c mentions a Layer 2 switch, which cannot perform inter-VLAN routing, thus failing to meet the communication needs between VLANs. Option d incorrectly states that 6 VLANs are needed, which is unnecessary and inefficient for the given scenario. Therefore, the correct approach is to configure 5 VLANs and implement a Layer 3 switch to enable inter-VLAN routing, ensuring that each department can communicate internally without interference while still allowing for necessary inter-department communication.

In addition to MFA, regular employee training on security best practices is crucial. Human error is often a significant factor in security breaches; therefore, educating employees about phishing attacks, social engineering, and safe internet practices can greatly reduce the likelihood of successful attacks. This dual approach addresses both the technical vulnerabilities of the network and the human factors that can lead to security incidents. On the other hand, relying solely on a firewall (option b) is insufficient, as firewalls can only control traffic based on predefined rules and do not protect against threats that originate from within the network or from compromised user accounts. Similarly, utilizing encryption only for data at rest (option c) fails to protect sensitive information during transmission, which is a critical phase where data can be intercepted. Lastly, establishing a strict password policy without additional measures (option d) does not provide adequate protection, as passwords can be compromised through various means, including brute force attacks or social engineering. In summary, a robust security policy must integrate multiple layers of protection, including technical measures like MFA and encryption, alongside administrative strategies such as employee training, to effectively safeguard the organization’s data integrity and confidentiality.

On the other hand, a star topology, while easier to manage and troubleshoot, relies on a central hub. If this hub fails, the entire network segment connected to it becomes inoperable, creating a single point of failure. Similarly, a bus topology connects all devices to a single communication line, which can lead to network failure if the main cable is damaged. Lastly, a ring topology, where each device is connected to two others, can also suffer from a single point of failure unless additional measures, such as dual rings, are implemented. Given the need for high availability and fault tolerance in a corporate setting, the mesh topology stands out as the most suitable choice. It not only supports scalability as the network grows but also ensures that communication remains intact even in the event of multiple link failures. This topology aligns with best practices in network design, emphasizing redundancy and reliability, which are critical for maintaining operational continuity in a business environment.

Correcting the subnet mask is essential because it defines the range of IP addresses that are considered local to the network. If the subnet mask is incorrect, the client machines may not recognize the server’s IP address as being on the same network, thus preventing access to the application. This step directly addresses the identified misconfiguration and is fundamental to restoring connectivity. While restarting the client machines (option b) may refresh their network settings, it does not address the root cause of the issue, which is the incorrect subnet mask. Checking the routing table (option c) is also important, but it is more relevant after ensuring that local configurations are correct. Analyzing firewall settings (option d) is a valid step in troubleshooting, but it should come after confirming that the local network configurations are accurate. Therefore, correcting the subnet mask is the most appropriate next step in this systematic troubleshooting process.

To successfully route the packet, the router must perform a Layer 3 routing operation. This involves examining the destination IP address and determining the appropriate VLAN interface to forward the packet to. The router will check its routing table to find the route to the destination IP address, which belongs to VLAN 20. Once the router identifies the correct interface for VLAN 20, it will encapsulate the packet in a new frame appropriate for that VLAN. This process includes translating the source IP address to the IP address of the VLAN 20 interface, ensuring that the packet is correctly routed to its destination. It is important to note that simply dropping the packet (option b) would not be correct, as the router is designed to handle inter-VLAN routing. Forwarding the packet without modifications (option c) would also be incorrect because the router must encapsulate the packet in a new frame for the destination VLAN. Lastly, changing the destination IP address (option d) is not a valid operation, as it would misdirect the packet and violate the integrity of the communication. Thus, the correct action for the router is to perform a Layer 3 routing operation, ensuring that the packet is properly routed to the intended VLAN and device. This highlights the critical role of routers in managing traffic across VLANs and ensuring seamless communication within a segmented network.

To find the minimum number of APs needed, we can use the formula: \[ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{\text{Total Bandwidth Requirement}}{\text{Bandwidth per AP}} \] Substituting the known values into the formula gives: \[ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{10 \text{ Gbps}}{1 \text{ Gbps}} = 10 \] This calculation indicates that at least 10 APs are necessary to meet the bandwidth requirements of the devices on the campus. Furthermore, while the central switch has a maximum throughput of 40 Gbps, which is sufficient to handle the total bandwidth requirement of 10 Gbps, the limiting factor in this scenario is the number of APs needed to distribute the bandwidth effectively across the campus. In a campus networking design, it is crucial to ensure that the network can handle peak loads and provide redundancy. Therefore, while the calculation shows that 10 APs are the minimum required, it is often advisable to consider additional APs for load balancing and to account for potential future growth in device connectivity. In conclusion, the design must not only meet current requirements but also be scalable and resilient, ensuring that the network can adapt to changing demands over time. This holistic approach to network design is essential for maintaining high availability and performance in a dynamic campus environment.

\[ A = \pi r^2 \] Substituting the effective radius: \[ A = \pi (100)^2 = 10,000\pi \text{ square feet} \approx 31,416 \text{ square feet} \] Next, we need to find out how many access points are necessary to cover the total area of the building, which is 20,000 square feet. To do this, we divide the total area by the area covered by one access point: \[ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{\text{Total Area}}{\text{Area per AP}} = \frac{20,000}{10,000\pi} \approx \frac{20,000}{31,416} \approx 0.6366 \] Since we cannot deploy a fraction of an access point, we round up to the nearest whole number. However, we must also consider that the coverage areas of the access points should not overlap significantly to avoid interference. Therefore, we need to ensure that the access points are placed strategically to cover the entire area without leaving any gaps. Given the dimensions and the effective coverage radius, the IT manager should deploy at least 4 access points to ensure that the entire area is adequately covered. This deployment allows for some overlap, which can help mitigate dead zones caused by walls and cubicles. Thus, the optimal number of access points for full coverage in this scenario is 4.

To ensure that the switch with the lower bridge priority becomes the root bridge, the engineer must decrease the bridge priority of the current root bridge (32768) to a value lower than 28672. This could be done by setting the priority to 24576, for example. Increasing the bridge priority of the switch with MAC address 00:1A:2B:3C:4D:5F would not help in making it the root bridge, as it would only make it less likely to be selected. Changing the MAC address of the current root bridge does not affect the bridge priority and would not influence the root bridge selection process. Lastly, configuring both switches to have the same bridge priority of 32768 would lead to a tie, resulting in the current root bridge remaining as the root due to its lower MAC address. Thus, the correct approach is to decrease the bridge priority of the current root bridge to ensure that the switch with the lower priority becomes the root bridge, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of STP configuration and the implications of bridge priority settings.

While the maximum latency observed during peak usage times (option b) can indicate potential bottlenecks, it does not provide a comprehensive view of the network’s overall performance. Similarly, the total number of packets transmitted (option c) is a raw data point that lacks context regarding the network’s efficiency or user experience. Lastly, the average number of users connected (option d) may provide insight into network load but does not directly correlate with performance metrics like latency or throughput. In summary, including the average RTT in the report allows the engineer to effectively communicate the network’s performance in a manner that is relevant to user experience and operational efficiency. This approach aligns with best practices in network documentation, which emphasize the importance of contextualizing performance metrics to inform stakeholders about the network’s capabilities and areas for improvement.

This approach addresses common vulnerabilities associated with traditional password-only systems, which can be compromised through phishing attacks, brute force attempts, or social engineering tactics. Even if an attacker manages to obtain a user’s password, they would still need the additional verification factors to gain access, thereby enhancing overall security. While options such as simplifying the login process or eliminating password management may seem appealing, they do not accurately reflect the core purpose of MFA. In fact, MFA can sometimes complicate the user experience, as it requires additional steps during the login process. Furthermore, while MFA can help meet certain regulatory requirements, it does not guarantee compliance with all regulations, as organizations may still need to implement other security measures to address specific compliance mandates. In summary, the implementation of MFA is a proactive measure that significantly mitigates the risk of unauthorized access, making it a vital component of a comprehensive security strategy in any organization.

This approach addresses common vulnerabilities associated with traditional password-only systems, which can be compromised through phishing attacks, brute force attempts, or social engineering tactics. Even if an attacker manages to obtain a user’s password, they would still need the additional verification factors to gain access, thereby enhancing overall security. While options such as simplifying the login process or eliminating password management may seem appealing, they do not accurately reflect the core purpose of MFA. In fact, MFA can sometimes complicate the user experience, as it requires additional steps during the login process. Furthermore, while MFA can help meet certain regulatory requirements, it does not guarantee compliance with all regulations, as organizations may still need to implement other security measures to address specific compliance mandates. In summary, the implementation of MFA is a proactive measure that significantly mitigates the risk of unauthorized access, making it a vital component of a comprehensive security strategy in any organization.

NPM tools typically offer features such as traffic analysis, alerting for performance degradation, and historical data analysis, which can help pinpoint when and where issues occur. This is crucial for understanding whether the connectivity problems are due to network congestion, hardware failures, or configuration errors. On the other hand, while a Packet Sniffer can capture and analyze packets traveling across the network, it does not provide a holistic view of network performance over time. It is more suited for deep packet inspection and troubleshooting specific protocol issues rather than ongoing performance monitoring. A Network Configuration Manager (NCM) focuses on managing and backing up network device configurations, which is not directly related to diagnosing connectivity issues. Similarly, a Bandwidth Analyzer can provide insights into bandwidth usage but may lack the comprehensive monitoring capabilities of an NPM, which integrates various performance metrics. In summary, for diagnosing intermittent connectivity issues effectively, a Network Performance Monitor is the most suitable tool, as it provides real-time insights into network performance, enabling the engineer to identify and resolve issues proactively.

If the default gateway is misconfigured, the devices in the affected subnet will not know where to send packets that are meant for the server’s subnet. As a result, these packets will be dropped, and users will experience a complete inability to reach the server. This situation can lead to significant disruptions, especially if the application hosted on the server is critical for business operations. To address this issue, the network administrator should first verify the correct IP address of the server’s subnet and then update the default gateway configuration on the affected devices to point to the correct gateway. This may involve accessing the router or switch that serves as the gateway and ensuring that it is properly configured to route traffic between the subnets. Once the default gateway is corrected, users should regain full connectivity to the server, allowing them to access the critical application without further issues. Additionally, it is advisable for the administrator to monitor the network for any further anomalies and to document the changes made to prevent similar issues in the future.

One of the key advantages of IPsec is its ability to provide strong encryption through various algorithms, such as AES (Advanced Encryption Standard), which is critical for maintaining data confidentiality. Additionally, IPsec can be configured in two modes: transport mode and tunnel mode. Transport mode encrypts only the payload of the IP packet, while tunnel mode encrypts the entire packet, providing an additional layer of security, especially for site-to-site VPNs. However, IPsec can face challenges when traversing NAT devices, as it relies on IP address information that can change when packets pass through a NAT. To address this, the use of NAT-T (NAT Traversal) can be implemented, allowing IPsec packets to be encapsulated in UDP packets, thus enabling them to pass through NAT devices without issues. In contrast, SSL (Secure Sockets Layer) VPNs, while also secure, are typically easier to configure and can traverse NAT without additional configuration. However, they may not provide the same level of network-wide security as IPsec, which secures all traffic at the IP layer. PPTP (Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol) and L2TP (Layer 2 Tunneling Protocol) are less secure compared to IPsec and are generally not recommended for environments requiring strong security measures. GRE (Generic Routing Encapsulation) is a tunneling protocol that does not provide encryption by itself, making it unsuitable for secure communications. Given the requirements for strong encryption, compatibility with various devices, and the ability to traverse NAT, IPsec emerges as the most suitable choice for the company’s VPN implementation. It balances security and performance effectively, making it the preferred protocol for securing remote access to internal applications.

The Network Layer (Layer 3) is crucial for determining how data packets are forwarded from the source to the destination across multiple networks. It utilizes protocols such as Internet Protocol (IP) to manage addressing and routing. If users are unable to communicate effectively, it may indicate issues with IP addressing, such as incorrect subnetting, misconfigured routers, or routing table errors. These problems can prevent packets from reaching their intended destination, even if the physical and data link layers are operational. In contrast, the Transport Layer (Layer 4) is responsible for end-to-end communication and error recovery, which would not directly address the routing issues at play. The Session Layer (Layer 5) manages sessions between applications, while the Application Layer (Layer 7) deals with user interface and application-level protocols. While these layers are important for overall communication, they do not directly resolve the underlying routing issues that are likely causing the connectivity problems between the departments. Thus, focusing on the Network Layer is essential for diagnosing and resolving the connectivity issue, as it encompasses the necessary functions for addressing and routing that are critical in this scenario.

Establishing a baseline allows the team to compare current performance metrics against historical data, which can help pinpoint whether the problem is due to network congestion, hardware failure, or configuration errors. For instance, if the latency is significantly higher than the established baseline, it may suggest a bottleneck in the network path or issues with specific devices. On the other hand, immediately replacing network cables without first diagnosing the problem may lead to unnecessary costs and downtime, especially if the cables are not the root cause of the issue. Similarly, rebooting the remote server could temporarily resolve symptoms but does not address the underlying cause of the connectivity problems. Checking application logs is also important, but it should follow the establishment of network performance metrics, as the issue may lie within the network infrastructure rather than the application itself. In summary, a systematic approach that begins with establishing a baseline is essential for effective troubleshooting. This method not only aids in identifying the root cause of the issue but also ensures that any subsequent actions taken are informed and targeted, ultimately leading to a more efficient resolution of the connectivity problems experienced by the user.

\[ \text{Total Bandwidth} = 50 \text{ users} \times 300 \text{ Mbps/user} = 15,000 \text{ Mbps} \] Next, we need to consider the throughput of each AP. The maximum throughput of an 802.11ac AP in the 5 GHz band is approximately 1.3 Gbps, which is equivalent to 1,300 Mbps. However, due to environmental factors such as interference and the presence of walls and cubicles, we should account for a realistic throughput. A common practice is to assume that only about 70% of the maximum throughput is usable in a real-world scenario. Thus, the effective throughput per AP becomes: \[ \text{Effective Throughput per AP} = 1,300 \text{ Mbps} \times 0.7 = 910 \text{ Mbps} \] Now, to find out how many APs are needed to meet the total bandwidth requirement, we divide the total bandwidth by the effective throughput per AP: \[ \text{Number of APs} = \frac{15,000 \text{ Mbps}}{910 \text{ Mbps/AP}} \approx 16.5 \] Since we cannot deploy a fraction of an AP, we round up to the nearest whole number, which gives us 17 APs. However, the question also mentions coverage, where each AP can effectively cover 2,000 square feet. The total area of the office is 10,000 square feet, which requires: \[ \text{Number of APs for Coverage} = \frac{10,000 \text{ sq ft}}{2,000 \text{ sq ft/AP}} = 5 \text{ APs} \] In conclusion, while the bandwidth calculation suggests 17 APs, the coverage requirement indicates that deploying 5 APs is sufficient to cover the area. Therefore, the engineer should deploy at least 5 APs to ensure both coverage and adequate bandwidth for the users, making option (a) the most appropriate choice.

The primary benefit of this approach is the efficient use of bandwidth. By reducing the size of routing tables, each router only needs to maintain information relevant to its specific subnet, which minimizes the overhead associated with routing updates. This localized management of routing information leads to faster convergence times and reduced latency, as routers do not need to process unnecessary information from other segments. Additionally, limiting the scope of routing updates helps to decrease the amount of broadcast traffic, further alleviating congestion. While using a single routing protocol across all segments might simplify the design, it does not leverage the strengths of different protocols for varying network conditions. Enhancing security through isolation is a potential benefit, but it does not directly address performance optimization. Lastly, while the goal of routing protocols is to find the shortest path, network conditions such as congestion and link failures can affect this outcome, making it an unreliable guarantee. Thus, the Divide and Conquer strategy, when implemented with appropriate routing protocols, significantly enhances network performance and management by optimizing bandwidth usage and improving routing efficiency.

\[ \text{Bandwidth for Academic} = \text{Total Bandwidth} \times \text{Percentage for Academic} = 10 \, \text{Gbps} \times 0.60 = 6 \, \text{Gbps} \] Next, we need to consider the expected growth in academic traffic, which is projected to increase by 20% over the next year. To find the new bandwidth requirement, we calculate 20% of the current academic bandwidth and then add this to the original bandwidth: \[ \text{Growth in Bandwidth} = \text{Current Bandwidth} \times \text{Growth Rate} = 6 \, \text{Gbps} \times 0.20 = 1.2 \, \text{Gbps} \] Now, we add this growth to the current bandwidth: \[ \text{New Bandwidth Requirement} = \text{Current Bandwidth} + \text{Growth in Bandwidth} = 6 \, \text{Gbps} + 1.2 \, \text{Gbps} = 7.2 \, \text{Gbps} \] Thus, the total bandwidth allocated for academic purposes is 6 Gbps, and with the anticipated growth, the new requirement will be 7.2 Gbps. This scenario illustrates the importance of planning for future growth in network design, ensuring that the network can accommodate increased demand without compromising performance. Additionally, it highlights the need for effective traffic segmentation to optimize resource allocation, which is a fundamental principle in network design. By understanding these concepts, network architects can create robust and scalable networks that meet the evolving needs of their organizations.

The best approach is to create a rule that specifically allows traffic from the internal network to the DMZ on the necessary ports for web traffic, which are port 80 for HTTP and port 443 for HTTPS. This configuration ensures that only web traffic is permitted, thereby minimizing the attack surface and maintaining a higher level of security. By denying all other inbound traffic from the internet, the firewall effectively protects the internal network from unsolicited access attempts, which is a fundamental principle of firewall security. On the other hand, allowing all traffic from the internal network to the DMZ without restrictions (option b) could expose the network to unnecessary risks, as it would permit potentially harmful traffic. Blocking all outbound traffic from the internal network to the DMZ (option c) would prevent legitimate access to the web server, defeating the purpose of having a DMZ. Lastly, allowing traffic from the DMZ to the internal network on all ports (option d) poses a significant security risk, as it could enable attackers to exploit vulnerabilities in the DMZ and gain access to the internal network. Thus, the correct configuration balances accessibility and security by allowing only the necessary traffic while blocking everything else, adhering to the principle of least privilege in network security.

One of the primary advantages of this model is its ability to manage traffic effectively. By segmenting the network into layers, traffic can be directed more efficiently, reducing congestion and improving performance. Additionally, fault isolation is enhanced; if an issue arises in one layer, it can be addressed without impacting the entire network. This modular approach simplifies network management, as changes or upgrades can be made to one layer without disrupting the others. Furthermore, the hierarchical model supports scalability, allowing the network to grow as the university expands. New devices can be added to the access layer without significant reconfiguration of the core or distribution layers. Security is also improved, as policies can be applied at the distribution layer to control access and monitor traffic flows. In contrast, the other options present misconceptions about network design. Reducing costs by minimizing devices is not a primary advantage of the hierarchical model; rather, it focuses on performance and reliability. Eliminating VLANs contradicts the principles of network segmentation, which are essential for managing broadcast domains and enhancing security. Lastly, a single point of failure is detrimental to network reliability; the hierarchical model is designed to avoid such vulnerabilities by incorporating redundancy and failover mechanisms. Thus, the three-layer hierarchical model is a robust framework that addresses the complex needs of a university campus network effectively.

In contrast, the other options misrepresent the functions of the transport layer. For instance, the physical layer, which is the first layer of the OSI model, deals with the actual transmission of raw bitstreams over a physical medium, such as electrical signals or optical pulses. Therefore, any issues at this layer would not directly relate to the reliability of data transfer but rather to the physical connection itself. Similarly, routing is primarily the responsibility of the network layer (the third layer), which determines the best path for data packets to travel across the network. Problems at this layer would affect how packets are directed but would not inherently cause issues with the reliability of data transfer. Lastly, the presentation layer (the sixth layer) is responsible for translating data formats and ensuring that data is presented in a way that the application layer can understand. Issues at this layer would not impact the transport of data itself but rather how it is formatted for applications. Thus, understanding the specific roles of each OSI layer is essential for effective troubleshooting and resolving communication issues in a network environment.