Cisco 300-420 Exam - Topic 7 Question 103 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-420 exam

Question #: 103
Topic #: 7

Since installing a cisco TelePresence system, the company is experiencing other application having response issues when the system in use. As a result, the company asked an architect to recommend a QoS solution. The customer is currently using a CBWFQ policy to manage traffic on an internet connection with a speed of 100 Mbps. Which link-capacity limit must the architect choose for strict-priority for the real-time traffic?

A25 Mbps

B50 Mbps

C33 Mbps

D75 Mbps

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/qos_conmgt/configuration/xe-3s/qos-conmgt-xe-3s-book/qos-conmgt-oview.html#GUID-48F6AF58-5CCC-44A0-B868-125AE453FF2A%20%20%20%20%20%20(75%20Mbps)

The sum of all bandwidth allocation on an interface cannot exceed 75 percent of the total available interface bandwidth. The remaining 25 percent is used for other overhead, including Layer 2 overhead, routing traffic, and best-effort traffic. Bandwidth for the CBWFQ class-default class, for instance, is taken from the remaining 25 percent.

by Cecily at Nov 16, 2024, 07:27 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium 300-420 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Tammara

9 months ago

I’m surprised they’re even using CBWFQ with that setup.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chara

9 months ago

Wait, 75 Mbps? That seems way too high for strict-priority!

upvoted 0 times

...

Lemuel

10 months ago

33 Mbps sounds a bit low for real-time traffic, right?

upvoted 0 times

...

Desire

10 months ago

Definitely should be 50 Mbps, that makes sense!

upvoted 0 times

...

Dwight

10 months ago

I think 25 Mbps is a safe bet for strict-priority.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rueben

10 months ago

I thought the limit for strict-priority should be less than half of the total bandwidth, so maybe 33 Mbps? But I’m not entirely confident about that.

upvoted 0 times

...

Chan

11 months ago

I vaguely recall that strict-priority should be a significant portion, maybe around 50 Mbps? That seems reasonable for video traffic, but I could be mixing it up with another topic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tanesha

11 months ago

I think I practiced a similar question where we had to determine bandwidth limits for different types of traffic. I feel like 25 Mbps might be too low for real-time applications.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eladia

11 months ago

I remember that for strict-priority traffic, you typically want to allocate a portion of the total bandwidth, but I'm not sure how much exactly.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lavera

11 months ago

This is a tricky one. I'll need to think through the QoS principles and how they apply to this specific scenario to determine the correct link-capacity limit for the strict-priority queue.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brock

11 months ago

I'm pretty confident I can solve this. The key is to understand the relationship between the total bandwidth, the CBWFQ policy, and the strict-priority queue requirements for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Valentine

11 months ago

Okay, let's see. The company is using a CBWFQ policy on a 100 Mbps internet connection, and they want to prioritize the real-time traffic from the Cisco TelePresence system. I'll need to do some calculations to find the right limit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alyssa

11 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit confused about how to determine the appropriate link-capacity limit for the strict-priority queue. I'll need to review the QoS concepts and guidelines.

upvoted 0 times

...

Erick

11 months ago

This question seems straightforward. I think I can figure this out by considering the total bandwidth and the requirements for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hana

2 years ago

I'm just going to close my eyes and point to an answer. That's how I passed the last one, right? *chuckles* Oh, wait, this is a serious exam. Hmm, I'll go with B) 50 Mbps.

upvoted 0 times

Francine

2 years ago

User 4: I'm going to stick with the original choice and say B) 50 Mbps.

upvoted 0 times

...

Justine

2 years ago

User 3: I believe it's D) 75 Mbps.

upvoted 0 times

...

Laurel

2 years ago

User 2: I'm not sure about that. I would go with C) 33 Mbps.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marci

2 years ago

User 1: I think the answer is A) 25 Mbps.

upvoted 0 times

...

Goldie

2 years ago

Hmm, that makes sense. I see your point now.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosina

2 years ago

Wait, are we sure the question isn't a trick? What if the answer is actually E) All of the above? Just kidding, but you never know with these certification exams.

upvoted 0 times

...

Penney

2 years ago

I disagree, I believe the answer is D) 75 Mbps because it should be higher to prioritize real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tyra

2 years ago

This is a tough one. I'm going to have to go with B) 50 Mbps. Anything higher might be overkill, and anything lower could cause issues for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Katheryn

2 years ago

D) 75 Mbps? That's a bit too much, isn't it? I'd go with A) 25 Mbps to be on the safe side.

upvoted 0 times

Katlyn

2 years ago

D) Yeah, 75 Mbps does seem high. A) 25 Mbps is a safer option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Alesia

2 years ago

C) 33 Mbps might be pushing it, better to stick with the lower limit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Jodi

2 years ago

Yeah, it's always better to err on the side of caution when it comes to QoS solutions.

upvoted 0 times

...

Desire

2 years ago

I agree, it's better to be conservative with the link-capacity limit.

upvoted 0 times

...

Bettye

2 years ago

B) I agree, it's better to be safe and prioritize the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Hester

2 years ago

I think A) 25 Mbps is a safer choice for strict-priority traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristofer

2 years ago

A) 25 Mbps sounds like a good choice for strict-priority traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Goldie

2 years ago

I think the answer is A) 25 Mbps because it should be less than the total link capacity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Oliva

2 years ago

Hmm, I'm not sure. C) 33 Mbps seems like a reasonable compromise between giving the real-time traffic priority and leaving enough bandwidth for other applications.

upvoted 0 times

Dona

2 years ago

D) 75 Mbps might be too high for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Barrett

2 years ago

C) 33 Mbps could be a good balance for the real-time traffic and other applications.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lura

2 years ago

B) 50 Mbps might be too much bandwidth for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Serita

2 years ago

A) 25 Mbps would be too low for the real-time traffic.

upvoted 0 times

...

Danilo

2 years ago

I think the answer is B) 50 Mbps. The strict-priority queue should be limited to about half the total bandwidth to ensure that other traffic is not starved.

upvoted 0 times