Free Practice Questions for Cisco 300-110 Exam

For a network supporting both data and voice over wireless, two key Cisco design recommendations apply. First, the 5 GHz radio band is recommended for voice over wireless due to its wider channel bandwidths, allowing for higher data rates and better quality of service for latency-sensitive applications. 40 MHz channels in the 5 GHz band provide significantly higher throughput than 20 MHz channels in 2.4 GHz, making Option B correct for the bandwidth reason stated. Second, setting the cell boundary to -67 dBm ensures sufficient signal strength for reliable voice communication at the cell edge, which is the Cisco standard threshold for VoWLAN coverage. Options C and E are partially correct (24 non-overlapping channels is accurate, 15-20% overlap is standard) but B and D are the primary Cisco recommendations that define the design targets for a predictive survey supporting voice. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — VoWLAN Design Requirements, Predictive Survey Design Criteria, 5 GHz Band Selection.

The Cisco Catalyst 9300-48HX is a high-density PoE switch specifically designed for Cisco Catalyst 9100 Series AP deployments. The 48HX variant features 48 Multi-Gigabit PoE ports with IEEE 802.3bt (PoE++) support, providing up to 90W per port. The Cisco 9166 Access Point is a Wi-Fi 6E AP that requires IEEE 802.3bt (PoE++) power to achieve full radio functionality — enabling all three radios including the 6 GHz radio. In a two-switch stack of 48HX units, the total PoE budget is designed and rated to support full-port utilization with Cisco 9100 series APs simultaneously. The design intent is to connect APs to all ports on all switches — maximizing the deployment density and ensuring every AP runs with full functionality. Connecting to only half the ports on one switch (Option B), half of each switch (Option C), or all ports on only one switch (Option D) would underutilize the infrastructure and fail to achieve the full deployment density that the switch stack was architected to deliver. The AP naming scheme requiring sequential area numbering requires all APs to be connected and fully operational across the entire stack. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Catalyst 9300 PoE Infrastructure, 9166 AP Power Requirements, High-Density Wired Infrastructure Design.

This question requires straightforward wireless capacity engineering calculation. The total throughput requirement is 100 users × 1 Mbps per user = 100 Mbps aggregate. Each channel in the design can support 20 Mbps of usable throughput — this is the per-cell, per-channel allocation defined in the design parameters, representing usable throughput prior to RF overhead as stated in the question. The number of channels required is therefore: total required throughput divided by throughput per channel = 100 Mbps ÷ 20 Mbps per channel = 5 channels. In practice, each channel corresponds to a non-overlapping frequency assignment in the 5 GHz band. With 5 channels and 20 Mbps per channel, the design provides exactly 100 Mbps of aggregate capacity for 100 concurrent users at 1 Mbps each. This calculation methodology is foundational to Cisco ' s high-density WLAN design approach, where the number of spatial streams, channel allocations, and AP placement are all derived from the per-user throughput requirement multiplied by the concurrent user population. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — High-Density WLAN Capacity Planning, Per-User Throughput Calculation, Channel Planning and Spatial Reuse.

A brownfield deployment scenario involves an existing operational wireless network where a physical remodel will change the RF environment. The engineer ' s task is to assess the impact of new furniture and wall materials on the existing AP placement — a scenario requiring a predictive re-analysis of how changed materials will alter propagation from the existing AP locations. Using a survey tool such as Ekahau with the known AP positions superimposed on updated floor plans, the engineer can reconfigure material attenuation properties to reflect new construction materials and re-run the predictive propagation model. This produces a before/after comparison identifying coverage gaps or interference hotspots introduced by the remodel without requiring physical downtime or temporary infrastructure changes. Option A (sweep analysis) measures existing signal strength but does not model future material changes. Option B (neighbor AP statistics) evaluates the current RF environment using WLC data, not future conditions. Option C (throughput measurements) tests current performance, not future RF impact. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Brownfield Survey Methodology, Material Attenuation Modeling, Post-Remodel RF Impact Analysis.

When conducting a Layer 2 site survey, it is recommended to match the survey to the worst client available. This ensures that the wireless network is designed to provide adequate coverage and performance even for clients with the poorest RF capabilities, thereby providing a consistent user experience for all devices. The worst client typically has fewer antennas, lower receiver sensitivity, and less sophisticated chipsets. By designing to its limitations, the engineer guarantees that every device in the environment meets the minimum performance threshold. Using the best client (Option A) or an average client (Option C) would result in coverage gaps for less capable devices. A phone client (Option B) may have unique characteristics but is not a universally applicable standard for general survey purposes. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Site Survey Methodology, Client Selection for Survey, Layer 2 Pre-Deployment Survey.

Layer 1 interference analysis is foundational to the Cisco site survey methodology. When a spectrum analyzer reveals periodic noise floor spikes across multiple channels with no clear line-of-sight obstruction, the root cause is almost certainly a non-802.11 device — candidates include cordless phones, video cameras, microwave equipment, or radar systems triggering DFS events. The correct engineering response is systematic documentation: capture the time of occurrence, the specific frequency or frequency range, and the geographic location of the interference signature. This triangulation data enables correlation with physical devices present in the facility. Simply increasing transmit power (Option A) raises the noise floor for neighboring cells and worsens co-channel interference. Using WLC monitoring tools (Option B) is insufficient because the WLC cannot detect non-802.11 energy at Layer 1. Adjusting the channel plan (Option C) without fully characterizing the interferer is premature. Only Option D follows the correct Cisco survey methodology for Layer 1 analysis, leading to actionable AP placement adjustments. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Wireless Site Survey Methodology, Layer 1 Spectrum Analysis, Interference Identification and Mitigation.

The design requirements specify a multi-LAG configuration where each LAG connects to a single switch, different VLANs are assigned to different LAGs, the controller must dynamically learn partner LAG capabilities per port, and standby ports provide redundancy upon active port failure. These requirements collectively point to IEEE 802.3ad LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol) as the correct protocol. LACP is the industry-standard IEEE protocol that enables dynamic negotiation of LAG membership between endpoints — the WLC and each Catalyst 9300 switch exchange LACP PDUs (LACPDUs) to discover port capabilities, negotiate bundle membership, and monitor link status. LACP supports active and passive port states where active ports initiate negotiation and passive ports respond, and it provides the standby port mechanism through its hot-standby capability for link redundancy within the bundle. The requirement to ' learn the identity of partners that can support LAG capabilities ' is the defining characteristic of LACP ' s standardized PDU exchange mechanism. PAgP (Option C) is a Cisco proprietary port aggregation protocol that, while functionally similar, is not the IEEE standard and is incompatible with non-Cisco equipment in mixed environments. OSPF (Option B) and BGP (Option D) are Layer 3 routing protocols entirely unrelated to port channel negotiation. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Catalyst 9800 LAG Configuration, LACP IEEE 802.3ad, Multi-LAG High Availability Design.

In Cisco ' s guest anchor WLC deployment model, multiple anchor controllers can be configured in a DMZ to provide redundancy for guest WLAN traffic. The anchor priority value determines which anchor controller is preferred for establishing the guest mobility tunnel from the foreign WLC. Cisco ' s anchor priority system assigns the highest preference to the lowest numerical priority value. Priority 1 is the highest priority, meaning the foreign WLC will prefer Anchor1 when establishing the CAPWAP mobility tunnel for anchoring guest client traffic. Priority 2 would be assigned to Anchor2, and Priority 3 to Anchor3, creating a deterministic failover hierarchy. If Anchor1 becomes unreachable, the foreign controller automatically falls over to Anchor2, then to Anchor3. Priority 0 is not a valid anchor priority value in the Cisco WLC configuration. This design pattern is critical for enterprise guest deployments where DMZ anchor redundancy must be maintained without manual intervention. Reference: WLSD Study Guide — Guest Wireless Architecture, Anchor WLC Configuration, Mobility and DMZ Design.