In a standard inter-office connection without encryption between San Francisco and New York offices, which description best fits the connection?

In a standard inter-office connection without encryption between San Francisco and New York offices, which description best fits the connection?

• A. Direct LAN-to-LAN link
• B. San Francisco LAN-WAN/ISP/WAN-New York LAN
• C. VPN tunnel between offices
• D. Wireless bridge

Answer: (B)

Inter-office connectivity across distant sites typically uses a WAN path provided by an ISP, with each site’s LAN hooked to its local WAN edge and traffic carried over the carrier network between sites. That pattern matches a San Francisco LAN connecting to a WAN/ISP, then across the WAN to the New York LAN. The lack of encryption means there isn’t a VPN tunnel involved. A direct LAN-to-LAN link would be a private point-to-point connection that bypasses the ISP’s WAN; a wireless bridge describes a wireless link, which isn’t indicated here.

Inter-office connectivity across distant sites typically uses a WAN path provided by an ISP, with each site’s LAN hooked to its local WAN edge and traffic carried over the carrier network between sites. That pattern matches a San Francisco LAN connecting to a WAN/ISP, then across the WAN to the New York LAN. The lack of encryption means there isn’t a VPN tunnel involved. A direct LAN-to-LAN link would be a private point-to-point connection that bypasses the ISP’s WAN; a wireless bridge describes a wireless link, which isn’t indicated here.