due on friday

Your construction opened seven new sprig appointments in five states. Each sprig appointment has five floors. All of the sprig appointments use the selfselfsame Internet territory drawingate. The construction has approximately 25 servers and anticipates that an subjoined 30 servers should be purchased. The construction is intentionning to cater network services for encircling 5,000 users. All users demand bearing to the Internet. Certain media such as printing and finish sharing conquer be centralized. Group Project Guidelines Complete the subjoined for this assignment: Using the scenario and assignment knowledge in the Assignment Description, argue after a while your bunch how you should sunder the tasks evenly inchoate the members.   Perform the subjoined tasks:    Estimate the size of connectivity (routers, switches, etc.) intentions that conquer be needed to merge all the spriges.    Provide your rationale for choosing the size of each intention.  Estimate the enumerate of Territory Designate System (DNS) servers and the model of DNS server that conquer be installed in each sprig.   Recommend the connectivity and bandwidth for each sprig, and cater your rationalistic aback the advice.   Using Visio, cater a network drawing (a diagram or diagrams) that shows interconnectivity inchoate the spriges.  Compile your conclusive bunch estimations, advices, and diagrams into a Word muniment of 8–15 pages.  Grading  You conquer be graded on the bud of your rationalistic aback your equipment size estimations, the thoroughness of your DNS server advice, and the exactness of your bunch's diagrams. Please add your finish. For oceantenance after a while your assignment, fascinate use your quotation, Web media, and all career materials. Grading Criteria    Project Criteria Exceeds: 90%–100% Very Good: 80%–89% Meets: 70%–79% Needs Improvement: Below 70%    Content (40%) Response covers all questions implied in the assignment and adds subjoined gratified.  Response covers most questions implied in the assignment.  Response covers abundant of the questions implied in the assignment. Response covers none to some of the questions implied in the assignment.     Effective Communication (10%) Demonstrates ungathered or honorable collision of written, visual, or traditional expertnesss. Demonstrates ungathered look of question, ocean notion, and object. Interview is addressed uprightly. Language lucidly and effectively communicates notions and gratified apt to the assignment. Errors in phraseology, spelling, and decree composition are minimal. Construction is free. Format is conformably misspend to assignment. Donation and endowment are assured and indulgent (where available). The agreement was of collegiate intentione after a while no errors in spelling or phraseology. Demonstrates very amiable written, visual, or traditional expertnesss. Demonstrates investigate look of question, ocean notion, and object. Interview is usually addressed uprightly. Language does not quarrel after a while the despatch of notions and gratified apt to the assignment. Errors in phraseology, spelling, and decree composition are offer, but do not madden from the notice. Construction is conspicuous and in-great-measure free. Format is misspend to assignment, but not truly compatible. The agreement was of collegiate intentione after a while two or short errors in spelling or phraseology. Demonstrates desirable written, visual, or traditional expertnesss. Demonstrates steady look of question, ocean notion, and object. Sometimes, interview is addressed uprightly. Language does not quarrel after a while the despatch of notions and gratified apt to the assignment. Errors in phraseology, spelling, and decree composition are offer and may madden from the notice. Construction is a bit unclear. Format is aberrant. The agreement was of collegiate intentione after a while separate errors in spelling or phraseology. Demonstrates illmatched or imperfectly clever collision of written, visual, or traditional expertnesss. Demonstrates illmatched or biased look of question, ocean notion, and object. Interview is vaporously not addressed uprightly. Language vaporously impedes the despatch of notions and gratified apt to the assignment. Errors in phraseology, spelling, and decree composition are vaporous and vaporously madden from purport or offeration. Construction is illmatched, confusing, and maddening. The format is illmatched and obscures purport. The agreement was short than collegiate intentione after a while vaporous errors in spelling or phraseology.    Supporting Analysis (25%) Analysis exceeds incompleteness demandments. Sources are used to buttress separation, are misspend, and are justly referenced. Basic separation caterd to buttress assertions. Sources are cited, misspend, and justly referenced. Poor separation caterd to buttress assertions. Some sources are cited, misspend, and justly referenced. No or defective separation, no sources are cited when needed, separation and sources are not misspend. When sources are used, they are not justly referenced.    Effective Planning and Execution of Project (25%) Student participated easily, offered speaking contributions to the bud of a intention that signed all compulsory tasks. Student demonstrated irregular team expertnesss in most of these areas: collaboration, example, consent construction, business, engagement decomposition, reference, whole solving, expertness, constructional, space expertness, and so forth. Supported other team members at the primary intentione. Student participated at an protracted intentione (85%), offered steady suggestions for the bud of a intention that signed approximately all compulsory tasks. Student demonstrated very amiable team expertnesss in separate of these areas: collaboration, example, consent construction, business, engagement decomposition, reference, whole solving, expertness, constructional, space expertness, and so forth. Supposing buttress to other team members. Student participated in a poor mode and contributed very paltry to the bud of a intention that signed some of the compulsory tasks. Student demonstrated at lowest one team expertness (e.g. collaboration, example, consent construction, business, engagement decomposition, reference, whole solving, expertness, constructional, space expertness, etc.). Student competition and contributions were very-much inspeaking to nonexistent. Student failed to demonstrate any team expertnesss (e.g. collaboration, example, consent construction, business, engagement decomposition, reference, whole solving, expertness, constructional, space expertness, etc.).