350-501 Automation and Quality of Service Practice Question
Exhibit
<config xmlns:xc="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
<native xmlns="http://cisco.com/ns/yang/Cisco-IOS-XE-native">
<policy>
<policy-map>
<name>QOS-POLICY</name>
<class>
<name>VOICE</name>
<priority>
<level>1</level>
</priority>
<police>
<cir>64000</cir>
<bc>8000</bc>
<conform-action>
<transmit/>
</conform-action>
<exceed-action>
<drop/>
</exceed-action>
</police>
</class>
</policy-map>
</policy>
</native>
</config>Refer to the exhibit. An engineer pushes this XML configuration via NETCONF, but the device rejects it with an error stating 'invalid policy-map structure'. What is the problem?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the dependency between class-maps and policy-maps, where candidates mistakenly think the error is about missing class-default or command incompatibility, rather than the fundamental requirement that a class must be defined before it is referenced.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
The class name must be defined in a class-map before being referenced in the policy-map
The error 'invalid policy-map structure' occurs because the policy-map references a class name that has not been defined in a class-map beforehand. In Cisco IOS, a class-map must exist before it can be used inside a policy-map; otherwise, the device rejects the configuration as structurally invalid.
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 class name must be defined in a class-map before being referenced in the policy-map
Why this is correct
The YANG model requires that class-maps are defined separately. This XML attempts to define a class inline, which is not allowed.
- ✗
The configuration is missing the class-default class
Why it's wrong here
The class-default is implicitly present; it does not need to be explicitly defined in the policy-map.
- ✗
The YANG model does not support the 'police' keyword
Why it's wrong here
The Cisco-IOS-XE-native YANG model supports police; it is a valid command.
- ✗
The priority and police commands cannot coexist in the same class
Why it's wrong here
In Cisco IOS, you can configure both priority and police in the same class; the policy-map would accept it if structured correctly.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every 350-501 question from scratch — 971 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 350-501 practice question is part of Courseiva's free Cisco certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the 350-501 exam.