The major disadvantage to techniques that attempt to mark IP packets as they move

Question

Options

• AA decrease in network efficiency
• BAn increase in the packet load
• CAn increase in bandwidth consumption
• DAll of the above

• A
  14% (5)
• B
  6% (2)
• C
  71% (25)
• D
  9% (3)

Explanation

Marking techniques embed path information (e.g., router identities) directly into packet headers or fields. Since each marked packet carries this extra data, the overall bytes transmitted on the network increases - meaning more bandwidth is consumed to deliver the same payload. This overhead is inherent to the marking approach and is the primary cited disadvantage in the literature.

Why A is wrong: Network efficiency (throughput and processing ratio) is not directly degraded by marking alone - routers still forward packets at normal rates; the marking operation itself adds negligible processing cost.

Why B is wrong: Marking modifies existing packets rather than generating additional ones, so the number of packets in flight does not increase - only their size does.

Why D is wrong: Since A and B don't accurately describe the disadvantage, "all of the above" cannot be correct either.

Memory tip: Think "mark = more bytes = more bandwidth." The word marking implies writing data onto packets, and bigger packets consume more of the wire.

No community discussion yet for this question.