An enterprise has experienced several incidents of clients running out of IP addresses while in a stadium. Which kind of group can be implemented to help more clients access the network?

In a stadium, clients constantly roam between APs, and each roam event without shared binding state causes a new DHCP request, rapidly exhausting the available address pool. FlexConnect groups synchronize client DHCP bindings across all member APs so a roaming client keeps its existing IP address, preventing unnecessary lease consumption and allowing more concurrent clients to obtain addresses.

AP groups organize APs for WLAN and RF policy assignment but have no mechanism to synchronize DHCP client binding state across APs, so they do not address IP address exhaustion caused by roaming.

Interface groups distribute clients across multiple VLANs to expand total available address space but do not prevent individual clients from consuming multiple leases as they roam, which is the root cause in this scenario.

WLAN groups push WLAN configurations to AP groups for policy management and have no functionality related to DHCP binding sharing or IP address conservation.