Cisco 200-301 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

Option 3 supplies routers/default gateways, not the DNS server list required for hostname resolution.

Option 51 tells the client how long it may retain the address but does not identify recursive resolvers.

Option 1 identifies the local mask and does not include the DNS resolver addresses.

Marking follows classification; the situation calls for the stage that separates traffic into service categories.

FIFO treats all packets as one ordered stream and does not perform the requested application-based class identification.

An indiscriminate rate limit does not identify different business application service classes.

Classification selects a traffic set; it does not by itself write the packet’s outbound DSCP field.

Shaping paces packets toward a rate, not the packet marking codepoint used for downstream PHB.

802.1Q VLAN IDs identify Layer 2 segments and are not the IPv4/IPv6 DSCP marking field.

FIFO does not provide bounded low-latency preferential service to the stated voice class under congestion.

Unbounded priority risks starving other classes; a carefully limited priority allocation meets the stated fairness requirement.

DSCP marks traffic for potential service treatment, but an actual priority queue policy is required on the constrained WAN link.

Shaping holds packets when possible and schedules them later; the requirement explicitly says excess arrivals must not be queued.

Classification and marking determine traffic identity or header bits but do not alone implement an exceed-rate enforcement action.

A priority queue favors scheduling a class but is not the token-bucket drop/remark rate limiter specified at ingress.

Policing enforces a rate by dropping or remarking excess packets rather than smoothing the traffic through deferred transmission.

The OSPF router ID identifies a routing speaker and has no direct relationship with WAN egress packet pacing.

Syslog buffers store operational messages, not Ethernet/IP data queued for an oversubscribed WAN circuit.

Undifferentiated shaping reduces the aggregate rate but cannot select the specific RTP traffic for preferential treatment.

Syslog facilities categorize operational messages and do not classify transit IP flows into packet-scheduling classes.

Changing an IP route selects forwarding paths rather than marking the service class of individual voice packets.

Ethernet speed negotiation affects the physical link and cannot assign a DSCP value to selected IP packets.

Shaping may defer packet transmissions but does not inherently rewrite the DSCP field required by this scenario.

Reference bandwidth influences OSPF route costs, not the DSCP code point carried in the IP header.

Unbounded priority can consume the available scheduler and jeopardize other traffic; the requirement includes preventing starvation.

Syslog severity is for event messages and does not decide the order in which WAN data packets are transmitted.

SNMP notifications monitor events; they are not a queuing discipline that can minimize voice delay under congestion.

Token-bucket policing enforces a rate contract, but it does not use WRED’s average-depth, class-sensitive early congestion avoidance.

Unlimited strict priority can starve competing classes and does not implement probabilistic early data-queue dropping.

Pure tail drop waits for a full queue, the behavior already implicated in the problem.

The IP route table does not report the active QoS per-class packet accounting and drop counters.

802.1Q trunk state is not the per-class WAN egress policy and packet-drop evidence requested.

OSPF process configuration cannot show current QoS class matches, queues or drops on the active interface.