CCNP Practice Question: Runs the following command on Router R5: R5# show…

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  The interface uses FIFO queuing for output.

  Why it's wrong here

  FIFO (First-In First-Out) is not indicated in the output because the command explicitly reports 'Queueing on output: Weighted Fair Queueing'. FIFO is a single-queue, non-classifying discipline that transmits packets strictly in arrival order and performs simple tail drop under congestion. Had FIFO been active, the output would have shown 'FIFO' instead of WFQ, and there would be no 'Number of queues' parameter. That parameter only exists when a flow-based fair-queueing algorithm like WFQ is configured.

• ✓

  The interface uses Weighted Fair Queueing for output with 256 queues.

  Why this is correct

  This is correct because the output contains two decisive statements: 'Queueing on output: Weighted Fair Queueing' and 'Number of queues: 256'. The first confirms the active output scheduling is WFQ, while the second specifies the number of dynamic queues used for flow classification. WFQ separates packets into conversations based on flow characteristics (source/destination address, ports, protocol, ToS) and schedules them fairly so that interactive flows are not starved by high-bandwidth bulk transfers. The default WFQ uses 256 queues (or a power of two), which matches the output.

• ✗

  The interface uses Class-Based Weighted Fair Queueing (CBWFQ).

  Why it's wrong here

  CBWFQ is not the correct answer because the output explicitly shows 'Weighted Fair Queueing' rather than 'Class-based Weighted Fair Queueing'. To enable CBWFQ, an administrator must configure class maps and policy maps using the MQC (Modular QoS CLI), and the interface output would then list the policy name and individual per-class queue statistics. Although CBWFQ internally uses a weighted fair scheduler between classes, the absence of any configured classes in the output confirms this is the classic flow-based WFQ, not CBWFQ.

• ✗

  The interface uses Priority Queuing.

  Why it's wrong here

  Priority Queuing (PQ) is wrong because PQ uses four strict-priority subqueues (high, medium, normal, low) and is configured via priority-list commands, not a flow-based hashing mechanism. The output clearly shows 'Weighted Fair Queueing' and 'Number of queues: 256', which cannot be produced by PQ. PQ would display the priority-list or priority-group configuration and would never report 256 queues. Additionally, PQ forwards all traffic out of the highest-priority non-empty queue before servicing lower-priority queues, unlike WFQ's fair scheduling.