A network administrator is deploying a new QoS policy to prioritize voice traffic across a WAN link. The policy must ensure that voice packets are not dropped even during congestion, and that bandwidth is guaranteed for voice. Which queuing mechanism should be used for the voice class?
LLQ provides strict priority queuing for real-time traffic like voice.
Why this answer
LLQ is the correct choice because it combines strict priority queuing with CBWFQ, ensuring that voice traffic is placed into a strict priority queue that is serviced before any other queues. This guarantees low latency and prevents voice packet drops during congestion by allowing the priority queue to be policed to a configured bandwidth limit, while still providing bandwidth guarantees for the voice class.
Exam trap
Cisco often tests the distinction between CBWFQ and LLQ, where candidates mistakenly choose CBWFQ because it offers bandwidth guarantees, but fail to recognize that only LLQ provides the strict priority queuing required for real-time voice traffic to avoid drops and delay.
How to eliminate wrong answers
Option A is wrong because WRED is a congestion avoidance mechanism that drops packets proactively based on queue depth, not a queuing mechanism that guarantees bandwidth or provides strict priority; it would drop voice packets during congestion, violating the requirement. Option C is wrong because CBWFQ provides bandwidth guarantees and fair queuing for classes but does not include a strict priority queue, so voice traffic would experience delay and jitter during congestion, leading to potential drops. Option D is wrong because FIFO queuing offers no differentiation or priority, causing voice packets to be treated the same as all other traffic, resulting in drops and delay during congestion.