RECENT ASSIGNMENT

Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Unit Code MN621
Unit Title Advanced Network Design
Assessment Type An individual written report and group demonstration – Assignment 2
Assessment Title Network requirement analysis, plan and design
Purpose of the assessment (with
ULO Mapping) This assignment is designed to assess students’ knowledge and skills related to the following learning outcomes:
d. Apply concepts and theories of human factors as related to network design and implementation;
e. Evaluate performance metrics and dimensions according to specifications.
Weight 15% of the total assessments
Total Marks 50
Word limit 1200 – 1500
Due Date Week 11, 31 May 2019 11:59 PM submit a report on Moodle, demonstration of the design in Week 11 lab class.
Submission Guidelines • All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along with a Title Page.
• The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11-pt Calibri (Body) font and 2.54 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section headings.
• Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and listed appropriately at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.
Extension • If an extension of time to submit work is required, a Special Consideration Application must be submitted directly on AMS. You must submit this application three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Further information is available at:
http://www.mit.edu.au/about-mit/institute-publications/policies-proceduresand-guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
Academic
Misconduct
• Academic Misconduct is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to exclusion from the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make themselves familiar with the full policy and procedure available at http://www.mit.edu.au/aboutmit/institute-publications/policies-procedures-and-guidelines/PlagiarismAcademic-Misconduct-Policy-Procedure. For further information, please refer to the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
Assignment Description
Dr Sanjeeb Shrestha Moderated by: Dr Ammar Alazab
Project Scope: A case study for Barranquilla Plaza Hotel is considered. The link for the case study referring to Barranquilla Plaza Hotel can be found in the Appendix.
The summary of the case study is that the hotel’s Wireless Access service was poor and had issues, such as dropped connections, dead zones and insufficient capacity. A wireless solution was provided (refer to the case study for further details) which was received very well by the customers. As a result, the overall experience of the customers improved remarkably.
Provided 5 different departments of the hotel, guest rooms, multiple restaurants, pool area, reception area and a bar, a generic network layout diagram of the hotel is presented below for illustrative purposes only.
Assignment Requirement: Provided the advantages of a layered approach (core, distribution and access), the hotel considers redesigning its network adopting a layered approach. The new network design requirements are a) three-layered network design (core, distribution and access) b) redundancy required in the core layer.
Gathering information about the existing network (such as IP addressing scheme, traffic restriction policies, applications used etc.) is paramount for any network redesign for a seamless transition. In this regard, the staff members and IT staffs can be invaluable sources of information. A carefully designed questionnaire can be instrumental in gathering information.
Figure 1. Generic Network layout
Part I: Information collection
Develop a questionnaire to gather requirements from staff members, IT members and management. The followings are to be covered in this section.
• What kinds of questions would you ask to understand their environment to each group of users better?
• For the Quality of Service (QoS) requirements, it is mandatory to acquire information about the traffic types from the IT staffs and set the bandwidth requirement accordingly. Specifically, for the new design, the followings criteria have to be satisfied.
For real-time traffic, bandwidth percentage should be set to 70 of the available bandwidth.
For FTP traffic, bandwidth should be set 200 kbps.
For SMTP traffic, bandwidth should be set to 800 kbps.
Note that traffic information is important and will be used for QoS. QoS reflects on the performance evaluation of the design.
• How would you validate and verify the gathered information?
Part II: Network redesign and Demonstration
This is a network redesign and demonstration section. The following are to be covered.
• A three-layered network design (consisting of the Core, Distribution and Access) is needed.
• The new design must be the transformation of the existing design show in Figure 1 (i.e., IP addressing, number of departments etc., should remain intact in the new design).
For demonstration, the format would be a) no more than 2 persons in a group, b) at least 3 viva voce questions related to the design, and c) demo and viva voce duration 5 – 7 mins (at max). The following is to be covered.
• Demonstration of a part of the design in Week 10 lab class (hardware platform)
Note to the lab tutor: As per the need, the lab tutor can allocate 15 mins in Week 9 and Week 10 for work progression check and consultation.
Marking Guide:
Section to be included in the report Description of the section Marks
Questionnaire preparation Are question prepared for:
Users
Management
IT staffs 10
Purpose of each question Are questions valid for gathering the information from stakeholders? 10
Validation and Verification plan Is there a plan to verify the gathered requirements from various stakeholders? 5
Network design with proper explanation and justification A clear network design (use simulation software) and proper labelling 10
Demonstration Demonstration of the part of the network in a hardware platform in the lab
• Work progression record and consultation will be on week 9 and 10 by the lab tutor.
• Demonstration of a part of the design in Week 11 lab (hardware platform) Demonstration marks will be awarded in regards to the stage of the completion of the demonstration and viva voce.
10
References Follow IEEE style referencing 5
Marking Rubric:
Grades HD
80% and above D 70 - 79% CR 60 - 69% P 50 - 59% Fail
50%
Questionnaire prepared
(10) Concise and specific to the project Topics relevant and soundly analysed Generally relevant and analysed Some relevance and
briefly presented Not relevant to the assignment topic
Questionnaire purpose
(10) Demonstrated
excellent ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated
excellent ability to think critically but did not source material appropriately Demonstrated an average ability to think
critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated an average ability to think critically but did not sourced reference material appropriately Did not demonstrate
the ability to think critically and did not sourced reference material appropriately
Evaluation,
i.e., validation and
verification of the
questionnaire
(5) Demonstrated
excellent ability to think critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated
excellent ability to think critically but did not source material appropriately Demonstrated an average ability to think
critically and sourced reference material appropriately Demonstrated an average ability to think critically but did not sourced reference material appropriately Did not demonstrate
the ability to think critically and did not sourced reference material appropriately
Network
design and its applications
(10) All elements are present and very well integrated Components present with good cohesion Components presented and mostly well integrated Most components present and an average integration Lacks components and not integrated well
Demonstration
(10) Logic is clear and easy to follow with strong arguments Consistent logic and convincing Mostly consistent logic convincing Adequate cohesion and conviction The argument is confused and disjointed
IEEE Reference style (5) Clear styles with an excellent source of references Clear referencing style Generally good referencing style Sometimes clear referencing style Lacks consistency with many errors
Appendix
https://static.tp-link.com/TP-Link_CS_Barranquilla_Auranet_1482298481639y.pdf