What a strong performance task measures
A performance task should require a student to interpret a requirement, build or analyze a network, collect evidence, make a decision, and verify the result. A decorative topology alone does not demonstrate networking skill.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 1: secure branch office
Design addressing, staff/guest segmentation, wireless access, required services, management restrictions, and firewall policy for a small branch. Submit diagram, policy matrix, configuration rationale, and acceptance tests.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 2: broken SOHO incident
Students receive a small network with one wrong gateway, a DHCP issue, or a wireless mapping fault. They must document scope, evidence sequence, correction, and verification without random resets.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 3: VLAN migration
Move departments into separate VLANs while preserving required shared services. Students plan port membership, trunks, gateways, routing/policy, maintenance steps, rollback, and validation.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 4: firewall least privilege
Start from an overpermissive ruleset. Students derive necessary flows from application requirements, reduce exposure, explain rule order, and prove allowed plus denied behavior.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 5: routing evidence
Provide a multi-router topology with overlapping route choices and one unreachable next hop. Students predict forwarding, collect path evidence, correct the fault, and explain return-path considerations.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 6: wireless capacity
Students evaluate a crowded wireless area using signal, retries, channel utilization, client count, throughput, and wired controls. They recommend a change supported by measurements.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 7: monitoring baseline
Students create a small baseline for latency, throughput, utilization, errors, and availability, then compare an incident dataset and identify which change deserves investigation.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 8: resilience review
Given a topology, identify single points of failure and propose redundancy where the requirement justifies it. Students must also identify complexity/cost introduced by the design.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 9: artifact case file
Students receive endpoint config, DNS output, traceroute, firewall logs, and server listener state. Some evidence is successful. The task is to identify the first failed dependency and reject unsupported causes.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 10: network documentation handoff
Students inherit an undocumented lab network and create a diagram, addressing/VLAN inventory, device roles, critical dependencies, management notes, and verification checklist another team can use.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 11: security review
Students inspect a fictional environment for excessive privilege, insecure management, weak segmentation, stale accounts, and missing monitoring. Recommendations must map to stated risks.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Task 12: growth proposal
A fictional network is adding users, devices, and a new application. Students evaluate address capacity, switch/AP capacity, WAN demand, reliability, segmentation, monitoring, and implementation risk.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Rubric dimensions
Score requirement interpretation, technical correctness, evidence use, security reasoning, troubleshooting method, verification, documentation, and collaboration. Keep presentation polish a smaller category than technical substance.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Academic integrity and safety
Use fictional or isolated networks. Students should not test unauthorized systems. Require attribution for external diagrams/data and individual reflection even when the configuration work is collaborative.
Evidence requirement: the submission should distinguish intended state from observed state, preserve relevant before/after artifacts, and include a test that could reveal an incomplete or incorrect solution.
Implementation workshop
Implementation workshop 1: What a strong performance task measures
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 2: Task 1: secure branch office
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 3: Task 2: broken SOHO incident
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 4: Task 3: VLAN migration
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 5: Task 4: firewall least privilege
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 6: Task 5: routing evidence
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require re producible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 7: Task 6: wireless capacity
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 8: Task 7: monitoring baseline
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 9: Task 8: resilience review
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 10: Task 9: artifact case file
Write the st udent-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 11: Task 10: network documentation handoff
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
Implementation workshop 12: Task 11: security review
Write the student-facing requirement first. Decide which artifact will make the mechanism visible, what students should predict, and which result would force them to revise their hypothesis. Build a narrow correction or design decision, then require reproducible verification. Add one misconception you expect and a follow-up question that exposes it without giving away the answer. For ap networking performance task ideas, tie this step to the specific instructional product students or teachers are building on this page.
AP Networking Performance Task Ideas classroom planning lab
Planning lab 1 — What a strong performance task measures: Begin with this content target: A performance task should require a student to interpret a requirement, build or analyze a network, collect evidence, make a decision, and verify the result. A decorative topology alone does not demonstrate networking skill. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Planning lab 2 — Task 1: secure branch office: Begin with this content target: Design addressing, staff/guest segmentation, wireless access, required services, management restrictions, and firewall policy for a small branch. Submit diagram, policy matrix, configuration rationale, and acceptance tests. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Planning lab 3 — Task 2: broken SOHO incident: Begin with this content target: Students receive a small network with one wrong gateway, a DHCP issue, or a wireless mapping fault. They must document scope, evidence sequence, correction, and verification without random resets. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Planning lab 4 — Task 3: VLAN migration: Begin with this content target: Move departments into separate VLANs while preserving required shared services. Students plan port membership, trunks, gateways, routing/policy, maintenance steps, rollback, and validation. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Planning lab 5 — Task 4: firewall least privilege: Begin with this content target: Start from an overpermissive ruleset. Students derive necessary flows from application requirements, reduce exposure, explain rule order, and prove allowed plus denied behavior. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Planning lab 6 — Task 5: routing evidence: Begin with this content target: Provide a multi-router topology with overlapping route choices and one unreachable next hop. Students predict forwarding, collect path evidence, correct the fault, and explain return-path considerations. Convert it into a student decision that produces observable evidence. Choose the artifact, write the expected result, add a plausible incorrect interpretation, and prepare a question that makes students distinguish the two. Decide what configuration or recommendation students may change, limit the change to what the evidence supports, and finish with a verification procedure another group could reproduce without being told the answer.
Continue with teacher resources
Teacher Resources · Curriculum Map · Classroom Labs · Bell Ringers · Site Directory