mediumMultiple Choice
350-401 Practice Question: Runs the following command on Router R1: R1# show…
A network engineer runs the following command on Router R1:
R1# show policy-map interface GigabitEthernet0/1
GigabitEthernet0/1
Service-policy output: QOS_POLICY
Class-map: VOICE (match-any) 0 packets, 0 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: ip dscp ef (46) Queueing queue limit 64 packets (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0 (pkts output/bytes output) 0/0 police cir 1000000 bc 15625 be 15625 conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions: transmit exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions: drop violated 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions: drop
Class-map: class-default (match-any) 100 packets, 10000 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: any Queueing queue limit 64 packets (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0 (pkts output/bytes output) 100/10000
Based on this output, what can be concluded?
⚠ Common exam trap
Cisco often tests the ability to read 'show policy-map interface' output carefully, where the trap is that candidates assume a configured policy is actively shaping or policing traffic without verifying the packet match counters.
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
✓
Voice traffic is not being classified because no packets match the VOICE class.
The output shows 0 packets matched for the VOICE class, meaning no traffic has been classified as voice despite the policy being configured. The police action is configured but never triggered because no packets match the class. Therefore, the correct conclusion is that voice traffic is not being classified.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Voice traffic is being marked with DSCP EF and is being policed at 1 Mbps.
Why it's wrong here
This statement is false because the voice class's packet counter is 0, indicating that no packets have ever matched the class-map's match criteria (typically 'match dscp ef'). Since the police rate of 1 Mbps is configured inside that same class, it has never been enforced on any traffic. Furthermore, marking to DSCP EF would be performed by a 'set dscp' action, which is also absent or inactive because the class is empty. Therefore, there is no evidence that voice traffic is being marked or policed.
- ✓
Voice traffic is not being classified because no packets match the VOICE class.
Why this is correct
This is the correct interpretation of the output. The VOICE class, which likely uses a class-map matching DSCP EF, shows 0 packets in the 'show policy-map interface' output, meaning no traffic has been classified into that class. This could be because voice traffic is absent, is not marked with DSCP EF at the source, or the match statement is misconfigured. As a result, the QoS actions (like police) inside the VOICE class have never been triggered.
- ✗
All traffic is being dropped due to the police action.
Why it's wrong here
This statement is incorrect because the class-default class shows 100 packets output, proving that traffic is being forwarded, not dropped. The only police action with a drop behavior is configured in the VOICE class, but since that class has matched zero packets, no drops have occurred. In a typical policy-map, only packets matching the specific class are subject to its actions; unmatched traffic falls through to class-default. Thus, the police action is not causing all traffic to be dropped.
- ✗
The policy-map is applied in the input direction.
Why it's wrong here
This statement is wrong because the output explicitly shows 'Service-policy output: QOS-POLICY' (or similar), indicating the policy-map is applied in the output or egress direction of the interface. An input-direction attachment would display 'Service-policy input: ...' instead. The direction of the service policy determines whether classification and policing happen on packets entering or leaving the interface, and here it is clearly egress. Therefore, saying it is applied in the input direction contradicts the verified output.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 1,923 original 350-401 practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This 350-401 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 350-401 exam.