CCNP Collaboration 350-801 CLCOR Practice Test 29

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Media is the most delay/jitter-sensitive and typically gets the highest priority (such as LLQ), while signaling is more delay-tolerant and can use a slightly lower classification, unlike treating them as identical, claiming signaling always outranks media, denying either needs QoS, assigning both to one undifferentiated queue, or ignoring media entirely.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: The trust boundary is the network point (typically the access switch port) where device markings are trusted or remarked per policy, unlike a physical security fence, after-hours building access setting, badge reader configuration, an external-firewall-only designation, or a maintenance scheduling concept.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: The access port should not trust markings from unmanaged devices and should classify/remark per policy instead, unlike always trusting every device's markings, stripping all markings regardless of source, giving every packet top priority, limiting classification to internet-bound traffic only, or disabling QoS entirely on such ports.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: The phone is a known, validated collaboration endpoint while a PC's markings can't be assumed reliable since arbitrary values could be set to gain unwarranted priority, unlike treating the two as identical, reversing which device is trusted, denying either has a bearing on trust boundary design, or basing the distinction on device casing color or purchase recency.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Trusting all device markings lets an unmanaged PC (or malware) claim high priority, potentially starving legitimate voice/video traffic, unlike claiming universal improvement with no downside, automatic encryption, automatic cost reduction, automatically disabling QoS, or increasing available IP addresses.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Correcting the access switch's trust boundary/remarking policy so PC traffic doesn't compete with voice at high priority is the appropriate remediation, unlike blaming ringtone assignment, replacing phone hardware, wrongly assuming the concept is deprecated, blaming office lighting, or blaming the phase of the moon.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: A conditional trust boundary at the access layer combined with consistent end-to-end DSCP marking and priority queuing provides effective, secure prioritization, unlike trusting everything unconditionally, marking only at the WAN edge, disabling access-layer QoS, giving all traffic top priority, or removing endpoint validation entirely.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Enforcing trust/reclassification as close to the traffic source as possible prevents improperly marked packets from ever gaining unwarranted priority network-wide, more effective than correcting them after they've traversed multiple segments, unlike treating trust boundary and WAN edge policy as identical, denying access-layer enforcement affects deeper network treatment, claiming enforcement is WAN-edge-only, claiming it requires disabling QoS elsewhere, or denying enforcement location affects overall effectiveness.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Signaling still needs reasonably timely delivery to avoid call setup delays, justifying a dedicated better-than-best-effort class despite being more delay-tolerant than media, unlike network management dashboard color scheme, NOC coffee brand, design documentation font, NOC parking space count, or outdoor temperature.

Correct Answer: 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
Explanation: Prioritization ensures classified traffic gets appropriate treatment while the trust boundary ensures only legitimate traffic can claim that priority, so both are needed together, unlike treating them as identical, claiming prioritization alone prevents unauthorized priority claims, claiming a trust boundary alone provides queuing treatment, denying either has a bearing, or claiming only one is ever relevant.