A service provider is designing a QoS policy for a multi-service MPLS VPN network that carries voice, video, and data traffic. The network uses DiffServ and MPLS EXP markings. The design must ensure that voice traffic is given priority over video and data, while video traffic should have better treatment than data but not at the expense of voice. The provider plans to use a hierarchical QoS (HQoS) policy at the PE-CE interfaces. Which configuration approach best meets these requirements?
This provides hierarchical control, ensuring voice gets priority within the shaped bandwidth while video and data get fair treatment.
Why this answer
Hierarchical QoS (HQoS) allows the service provider to enforce a total bandwidth shape at the parent level while using a child policy to apply LLQ for voice (ensuring strict priority) and CBWFQ for video and data (ensuring video gets better treatment than data without starving voice). This meets the requirement that video should not degrade voice, as the parent shape prevents any single class from monopolizing the link, and the child policy’s LLQ guarantees voice priority over all other traffic.
Exam trap
Cisco often tests the misconception that a single-level LLQ can handle multiple priority classes together, but the trap here is that combining voice and video in one LLQ queue violates the strict priority requirement for voice over video, which HQoS with separate child policies resolves.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option A is wrong because relying solely on EXP markings in the core does not enforce per-interface queuing or bandwidth guarantees at the PE-CE edge; the core may treat EXP 5 and EXP 4 similarly if no DiffServ PHB is strictly mapped, and it cannot prevent video from competing with voice on the access link. Option B is wrong because placing voice and video together in a single LLQ class gives them equal priority, violating the requirement that video must not degrade voice; LLQ treats all traffic in the priority queue the same, so voice could be delayed by video bursts. Option D is wrong because applying class-based shaping separately to each traffic class does not provide a hierarchical structure to enforce a total bandwidth limit or guarantee that voice gets strict priority over video and data; it only shapes individual classes independently, which can lead to oversubscription and no priority queuing.