Your customer has four different architectures from Cisco and other vendors for their wired, wireless, and sd-WAN infrastructure. How should you explain the benefits of moving to a unified…

Question

Options

• AAruba's dual architectures reduce the number of infrastructure devices needed for wired and
• BCentral Aruba offers a single control panel between wired, wireless and SD-WAN networks
• CAruba dynamic segmentation Unified Policy on Cisco Switches and Aruba Wireless Devices
• DAruba switch APs and WAN devices have built-in management consoles so the customer does not

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  6% (3)
• C
  78% (38)
• D
  14% (7)

Explanation

Option C is correct because Aruba Dynamic Segmentation is specifically designed to enforce a Unified Policy across mixed-vendor environments, including existing Cisco switches paired with Aruba wireless devices - making it the most compelling argument for a customer reluctant to fully replace their Cisco infrastructure. This directly addresses the customer's pain point: they gain consistent, role-based policy enforcement across wired and wireless without a full rip-and-replace.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is incorrect because Aruba promotes a unified architecture, not "dual architectures," and the claim about reducing device count is not the primary ESP selling point.
• B is plausible (Aruba Central does provide centralized management), but it doesn't address interoperability with existing Cisco gear, making it weaker than C for this specific scenario.
• D is backwards - individual built-in device consoles represent fragmentation, the very problem the customer is trying to escape, not a benefit of ESP.

Memory tip: Remember "Dynamic Segmentation = One Policy, Any Vendor." If you see a question about mixed Cisco/Aruba environments, Dynamic Segmentation is almost always the answer because it's Aruba's flagship argument for coexistence migration over wholesale replacement.

No community discussion yet for this question.