Refer to the exhibit. A network engineer notices packet loss and sluggish application performance on a branch-office uplink. While troubleshooting, the engineer executes the show interfaces GigabitEthernet0/1 command on the router. Based on the output, what is the most likely cause of the performance issue?
The output queue is maxed (40/40) and output drops are very high (12450). The 5-minute output rate of 10 Mbps is far below the interface bandwidth of 100 Mbps, yet the queue is overflowing, which indicates microbursts from a faster upstream link overwhelming the slower interface. This is the classic signature of a speed mismatch.
Why this answer
The exhibit shows 12,450 output drops and an output queue that is completely full (40/40). The interface is up, operating at 100 Mb/s full-duplex, and shows zero input errors or CRC errors, ruling out physical layer corruption. The high output drops with a maxed-out output queue typically indicate that an upstream device is transmitting at a rate that exceeds the interface’s egress capacity, causing tail drops.
This is a classic symptom of a speed mismatch where, for example, a distribution switch is forwarding traffic at 1 Gbps toward a 100 Mbps uplink.
Exam trap
Candidates often try to increase the output queue size or enable QoS queuing (option D) to absorb bursts, but increasing the queue does not fix the underlying speed mismatch and can introduce excessive bufferbloat, worsening latency. The correct root cause is a mismatch in forwarding rates between the upstream device and the local interface.
Why the other options are wrong
Candidates sometimes associate packet loss with duplex mismatches, but a duplex mismatch would also show collisions and typically input errors, both of which are zero here.
Zero input errors means no physical-layer receiving problems; the candidate may misinterpret the absence of errors as a sign of some other problem, which is logically incorrect.
Increasing the queue size is a common workaround that masks the real problem, but the underlying mismatch in forwarding rates remains. CCNA candidates may incorrectly focus on the queue size rather than the relationship between the 100 Mb/s interface speed and a faster upstream sender.