SkillTestPro | CCNP Collaboration 350-801 CLCOR Practice Test 29

CCNP Collaboration 350-801 CLCOR Practice Test 29 (Hard) - QoS Considerations for Signaling and Media, and QoS Trust Boundaries for LAN Classification and Marking

CCNP Collaboration Exam Questions

1 / 10

Which QoS consideration distinguishes the treatment typically recommended for real-time voice/video media traffic compared to call signaling traffic?

Media traffic is generally the most delay- and jitter-sensitive and is typically given the highest priority queuing (such as via LLQ), while signaling traffic, though still important, is generally more tolerant of minor delay and can be treated with a slightly lower-priority classification

Media traffic and signaling traffic are simply two different names for the exact same identical traffic type with no distinction in QoS treatment, in most deployment scenarios, which is inconsistent with expected behavior, though this is not generally recommended, based on standard platform behavior

Media traffic and signaling traffic should always be assigned to the exact same queue with no differentiation whatsoever

Only signaling traffic is ever relevant to QoS design, with media traffic requiring no consideration at all

Neither media traffic nor signaling traffic requires any QoS classification or marking under any circumstance

Signaling traffic always requires strictly higher priority than media traffic in every deployment scenario

2 / 10

Which statement correctly describes the concept of a QoS trust boundary in a campus or branch network design?

The trust boundary is a scheduling concept that determines when network maintenance windows occur

The trust boundary is a setting that determines which employees are permitted building access after hours

The trust boundary is a designation applied only to external internet-facing firewalls with no relevance to internal traffic

The trust boundary is a physical security perimeter fence installed around the data center

The trust boundary is the point in the network (typically the access switch port connected to an endpoint) beyond which markings set by connected devices are either trusted as-is or re-classified and remarked according to policy, rather than being trusted unconditionally everywhere

The trust boundary is a badge reader configuration unrelated to network traffic classification

3 / 10

Which QoS design practice reflects the recommended treatment of CoS/DSCP markings arriving from an untrusted or unmanaged end-user device connected to an access switch port?

The access switch should disable QoS entirely on any port connected to an unmanaged device

The access switch should always trust every marking set by any connected device without exception, regardless of the device's management status, under normal operating conditions

The access switch should apply QoS classification only to traffic destined for the internet and ignore all internal traffic

The access switch should not extend trust to markings set by an unmanaged device and should instead classify and remark the traffic based on a defined policy at that access port

The access switch should remove all QoS markings from every packet it forwards regardless of source

The access switch should apply the highest possible priority to every packet regardless of its actual traffic type

4 / 10

Which scenario illustrates why a managed Cisco IP phone is often treated as a trusted or conditionally trusted endpoint at the QoS trust boundary, while a PC connected to the phone's secondary switch port is not?

Neither the IP phone nor the PC has any bearing on QoS trust boundary design in any network

The distinction between the IP phone and the PC is based solely on the color of each device's casing

The PC is always trusted implicitly while the IP phone is never trusted under any circumstance, reversing their actual treatment, in most deployment scenarios, in a properly maintained environment, though this is not generally recommended, under normal operating conditions, under normal operating conditions

The distinction between the IP phone and the PC is based solely on which device was purchased more recently

The IP phone and the PC are simply two different names for the exact same identical trust classification with no distinction

The IP phone is a known, managed collaboration endpoint whose voice VLAN markings can be reliably validated (such as via CDP/LLDP-MED), whereas a PC's markings cannot be assumed reliable since a user or malicious software could set arbitrary CoS/DSCP values to gain unwarranted priority

5 / 10

Which risk would most likely result from a network design that trusts CoS/DSCP markings set by any device connected to an access switch port, including unmanaged PCs?

Trusting all markings would automatically increase the number of available IP addresses on the network

Trusting all markings would automatically improve every type of traffic's performance with no downside of any kind

Trusting all markings would automatically reduce the organization's overall WAN bandwidth cost with no other effect, regardless of the platform version in use, in most deployment scenarios, though this is not generally recommended

Trusting all markings would automatically encrypt all traffic on the network with no other effect

A user or piece of malware on an unmanaged PC could mark its own traffic with a high-priority value, potentially starving legitimate voice and video traffic of the priority treatment it needs

Trusting all markings would automatically disable QoS entirely across the network with no other effect

6 / 10

Which troubleshooting step would be appropriate if voice call quality degrades specifically after a new PC application is deployed organization-wide, and packet captures show the PC's traffic carrying an unexpectedly high-priority DSCP marking?

Immediately replace all affected phones' hardware as the first troubleshooting step

Assume the issue is caused by the phase of the moon

Assume the issue is unrelated to QoS marking and only check the office's lighting

Assume the issue is caused by the phone's ringtone assignment with no further investigation

Assume QoS trust boundary configuration is a deprecated concept no longer relevant to modern networks

Review and correct the access switch's trust boundary and classification/remarking policy to ensure PC-originated traffic is not being trusted or is being appropriately reclassified, rather than allowed to compete with voice traffic at high priority

7 / 10

Which combination of QoS design elements would provide effective end-to-end prioritization for voice and video media while preventing unauthorized or unmanaged devices from claiming the same priority?

Removing all voice VLAN and CDP/LLDP-MED validation entirely so no endpoint distinction is possible at the access layer, under typical configuration conditions, which does not align with best practices, under normal operating conditions, under typical configuration conditions, in a properly maintained environment

Trusting every device connected to the network unconditionally with no classification or remarking policy at all

Applying DSCP marking only at the WAN edge with no classification or trust boundary policy at the access layer

Assigning the highest possible priority to all traffic on the network regardless of type or source

A clearly defined trust boundary at the access layer that conditionally trusts known collaboration endpoints (such as validated IP phones) while classifying and remarking traffic from unmanaged devices, combined with consistent DSCP marking and priority queuing (such as LLQ) applied end to end along the path

Disabling QoS entirely at the access layer while relying solely on WAN-edge policy with no end-to-end consistency

8 / 10

Which statement accurately explains why QoS trust boundary policy is typically enforced at the network access layer rather than deeper within the core or WAN edge of the network?

Trust boundary enforcement is only possible at the WAN edge and can never be applied at the access layer in any network

Trust boundary policy is simply a different name for WAN edge policy, and the two concepts are identical with no distinction in enforcement location, in most deployment scenarios, regardless of the platform version in use, regardless of the platform version in use, in a properly maintained environment, though this is not generally recommended

Enforcing trust and reclassification as close as possible to where untrusted traffic originates prevents improperly marked packets from ever entering the network with an unwarranted priority, which is more effective than attempting to detect and correct such markings after they have already traversed multiple network segments

Enforcing trust boundary policy at the access layer always requires disabling QoS everywhere else in the network

The location of trust boundary enforcement within the network has no bearing on overall QoS effectiveness

Enforcing trust boundary policy at the access layer has no effect on how traffic is treated deeper within the network

9 / 10

Which factor would most influence whether a design team assigns call signaling traffic to a dedicated QoS class separate from best-effort data traffic, even though signaling is more delay-tolerant than media?

The brand of coffee served in the network operations center

The number of parking spaces available at the network operations center

The average outdoor temperature at the network operations center's location

The color scheme configured for the network management platform's dashboard, which is not the standard approach, under typical configuration conditions, which is inconsistent with expected behavior, which does not align with best practices, in a properly maintained environment, in a properly maintained environment

Signaling traffic, while more delay-tolerant than media, still needs reasonably timely delivery to avoid call setup delays or failures, so it typically warrants a dedicated class with better-than-best-effort treatment even though it does not require the same strict priority as media

The font used in the network design documentation

10 / 10

Which statement accurately summarizes why both media prioritization and a well-defined trust boundary are necessary components of a comprehensive collaboration QoS design, rather than either alone being sufficient?

Neither media prioritization nor a trust boundary has any bearing on the effectiveness of a collaboration QoS design

Media prioritization (such as LLQ) ensures that correctly classified real-time traffic receives appropriate treatment along the path, while the trust boundary ensures that only legitimately classified traffic is allowed to claim that priority in the first place — without the trust boundary, prioritization could be undermined by illegitimately marked traffic competing for the same high-priority treatment

Only one of media prioritization or trust boundary policy is ever relevant to a given collaboration QoS design

Media prioritization alone can fully prevent unauthorized devices from claiming high-priority treatment, making a trust boundary unnecessary

A trust boundary alone can fully ensure real-time media receives appropriate queuing treatment, making prioritization mechanisms like LLQ unnecessary, which is not the standard approach, which is inconsistent with expected behavior, which does not align with best practices, under normal operating conditions, under normal operating conditions, though this is not generally recommended, in a properly maintained environment

Media prioritization and trust boundary policy are simply two different names for the exact same identical QoS mechanism

Your score is

The average score is 0%