N10-009 Question 194
Single answerIP address management (IPAM), Service-level agreement (SLA), Wireless survey/heat mapA company is opening a new floor in its office and plans to support VoIP handsets, laptops, and barcode scanners over Wi-Fi. The network administrator must ensure wireless coverage meets the company's service-level agreement (SLA) for application performance, which requires at least -67 dBm signal strength in all work areas and no more than 2% packet loss during business hours. The administrator also wants to avoid DHCP scope exhaustion and duplicate static assignments as more devices are added over time. Which action should the administrator take FIRST to best support both the SLA and ongoing address management?
- A
Perform a predictive wireless survey and heat map review, then document and track IP allocations in an IPAM solution before deployment
- B
Increase the DHCP lease time for all wireless scopes so devices retain addresses longer and roaming is reduced
- C
Deploy additional access points with maximum transmit power in all corners of the floor, then manually track IP addresses in a spreadsheet
- D
Create an SLA that guarantees 100% uptime and unlimited wireless capacity, then size the subnet based on the current employee count only
Show answer and explanation
Correct answer: A
Explanation
The best first action is to validate the wireless design against the SLA by using a wireless survey approach, including predictive planning and heat map analysis, and to pair that with formal IP address management. In practice, wireless networks that support voice and operational devices are designed to target coverage thresholds such as around -67 dBm for reliable voice-grade connectivity, though exact requirements depend on vendor guidance and application needs. Heat maps help identify coverage gaps, overlap, and expected signal distribution before deployment, and post-deployment validation can confirm the SLA is being met. Separately, IPAM is a best practice for managing DHCP scopes, reservations, exclusions, utilization, and static assignments across growing environments. This reduces administrative errors and supports capacity planning. Industry best practices from wireless vendors and general network operations guidance emphasize site surveys for WLAN design and centralized IP tracking for address lifecycle management.
- A. Correct.
Correct. A predictive wireless survey and heat map review is the appropriate first step when designing coverage for a new floor, especially when the SLA includes measurable wireless performance targets such as minimum signal strength and packet loss thresholds. This helps validate AP placement and expected coverage before deployment. Using IP address management (IPAM) to document scopes, reservations, exclusions, and static assignments supports long-term capacity planning and reduces the risk of scope exhaustion or address conflicts. This option addresses both the wireless SLA requirement and structured IP address management.
- B. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Increasing DHCP lease time does not solve wireless coverage or packet loss issues, and it can actually worsen address utilization by keeping addresses assigned longer than necessary. Roaming behavior is primarily related to wireless design, RF coverage, client behavior, and controller/AP configuration, not DHCP lease duration. Someone might choose this option because DHCP is involved in client connectivity, but it does not address the root design requirements.
- C. Incorrect.
Incorrect. Simply adding access points at maximum transmit power is not a best practice. Overpowering APs can increase co-channel interference, create sticky client issues, and produce uneven cell design. Manual IP tracking in a spreadsheet is also error-prone and does not scale well compared to IPAM. This option reflects a common misconception that more AP power automatically means better wireless performance.
- D. Incorrect.
Incorrect. An SLA should define realistic, measurable service objectives, not impossible guarantees such as 100% uptime and unlimited capacity. In addition, subnet sizing based only on current employee count ignores growth, device diversity, guest access, IoT scanners, VoIP handsets, and operational overhead. Someone might choose this because SLAs and capacity planning are involved, but it fails both on realistic SLA construction and proper IP planning.