Exam N10-008 topic 1 question 353 discussion

The answer should be A, only A can provide more throughput on the connection. A single 80MHz stream on WiFi 5 (AC) supports 433Mbps, so using a 160MHz stream will, you guessed it, support 866Mbps. Emmett Dulaney "Channel Bonding With channel bonding, you can use two channels at the same time. As you might guess, the ability to use two channels at once increases performance."

"Mobile tablets" What good is a directional antenna going to do for devices which are, and I quote "mobile". Furthermore the question specifies "high-resolution" images which in no uncertain terms describes a throughput issue and not a coverage issue. They need more bandwidth (provided by Channel bonding) not a more specific, stationary, narrow coverage area (provided by a directional antenna)

Messed up my reason written from trying to figure this out, this is worded correctly: Channel Bonding's main duty is to increase amount of lanes & bandwidth for a device to transmit it's signal through, but this would not be good if you're trying to give improved performance to multiple tablets for high-resolution images & videos across the network, because this would cause congestion & interference within where channel bonding has to be done. A directional antenna improves signal within where there is already good coverage allowing more signal strength without using up more frequency lanes, thus allowing more tablets to have high-resolution images & video streaming. In short: Antenna = Coverage Channel Bonding = Individual Throughput Performance

Channel Bonding's main duty is to increase amount of lanes & bandwidth for more devices to travel through the drive, but this would not be good if you're trying to give improved performance to multiple tablets for high-resolution images & videos across the network, because this would cause congestion & interference within where channel bonding has to be done. A directional antenna improves signal within where there is already good coverage allowing more signal strength without using up more frequency lanes, thus allowing more tablets to have high-resolution images & video streaming. In short~ Antenna = Coverage Channel Bonding = Individual Throughput Performance :)

Antenna = Coverage Channel Bonding = Throughput Performance

it is A

I'm convinced it is channel bonding what they want as the answer.

The issue is not signal quality. That is to threw you off. Most important info is "high resolution images and videos" - that implies that they need speed. Channel bonding helps squeeze more from this setup.

I do not like the wording of the question but. After thinking about this for some time, I came to think of it like this. You can have coverage but still not have great signal quality. And if you just bonded the signals, that does not help with the devices not getting a good signal. But with carefully paced directional antennas the signal would be stronger and offer more reliability for all the devices in the area.

A directional antenna would provide the best solution for this scenario. When performance is below expected levels despite the use of high-density access points (APs), it can be a result of various factors such as interference from other wireless networks, distance from the AP, and obstacles in the signal path. In this scenario, a directional antenna would be the best solution because it concentrates the Wi-Fi signal in a specific direction, providing a stronger signal to the client's mobile tablets. This increased signal strength can result in improved performance and a more stable connection.

. Channel bonding. Channel bonding combines multiple channels to increase the available bandwidth and improve overall performance. This can help alleviate any congestion and improve the overall performance of the wireless network. EIRP power settings and antenna polarization can also help improve wireless performance, but channel bonding is likely to have the most significant impact in this scenario. A directional antenna might be beneficial if there are specific areas of the office where coverage is weaker, but it would not likely solve the overall performance issue.

B. EIRP power settings. The other options are not the best solution in this scenario since Channel bonding, Antenna polarization, and a directional antenna would not necessarily improve the performance of the Wi-Fi 5 network enough to meet the requirements. EIRP power settings are the best solution because it can help to increase the signal strength and improve the performance of the network.

Can someone please explain why would it be D?