Regarding the use scenarios and characteristics of various ACs, which of the following descriptions is correct? (Multiple choice)

Question

Options

• AStandalone AC single boards such as ACU2 are suitable for large-scale networks, there will be
• BIndependent box AC such as AC6605 is suitable for the unified construction of wired and wireless
• CA native AC such as an X1E board is suitable for scenarios where wired and wireless users are
• DWith the board AC such as X1E single board, compared with independent AC such as AC6605, it

• A
  82% (42)
• B
  12% (6)
• C
  6% (3)

Explanation

Options A and D are correct because standalone card-type ACs like the ACU2 are specifically designed for large-scale network deployments, offering high AP capacity by inserting into chassis switches, and board-type ACs like the X1E single board have a cost and integration advantage over independent box ACs like the AC6605 since they reuse existing switch hardware rather than requiring a dedicated device.

Option B is incorrect because independent box ACs such as the AC6605 are primarily suited for medium-scale centralized wireless management, not specifically positioned as the optimal solution for unified wired and wireless construction - that integrated wired/wireless convergence role is better associated with other deployment models.

Option C is incorrect because the use case described for native/board ACs like the X1E does not accurately reflect their typical deployment scenario; board ACs are generally suited for small to medium branch environments rather than the scenario described.

Memory tip: Think of AC types by scale - card ACs (ACU2) slot into big chassis for big networks, box ACs (AC6605) stand alone for mid-range deployments, and board ACs (X1E) piggyback on existing switches for cost savings at smaller sites. The trade-off for board ACs versus independent ACs is always cost efficiency versus dedicated performance.

No community discussion yet for this question.