Which of the following statements are true regarding a lower oversubscription ratio in a network design?

Question

Options

• AA lower oversubscription ratio increases the overall cost of the network.
• BA lower oversubscription ratio provides less available bandwidth to handle congestion.
• CA lower oversubscription ratio decreases the overall cost of the network.
• DA lower oversubscription ratio provides more available bandwidth to handle congestion.

• A
  84% (49)
• B
  5% (3)
• C
  10% (6)

Explanation

Oversubscription ratio measures how much total subscribed bandwidth exists versus actual available bandwidth (e.g., 4:1 means 4 units promised for every 1 unit of real capacity). A lower ratio (closer to 1:1) means the network has more real bandwidth per subscribed user, which requires more physical links, switches, and hardware - directly increasing cost (A is correct). That additional physical capacity also means more headroom exists when traffic spikes, giving the network more available bandwidth to absorb congestion (D is correct).

Why B is wrong: B inverts the relationship - lower oversubscription means more available bandwidth, not less. Congestion handling improves as the ratio drops toward 1:1.

Why C is wrong: More capacity requires more hardware and cabling, so cost goes up, not down. Higher oversubscription ratios (e.g., 20:1) are the cost-saving approach, at the expense of performance.

Memory tip: Think of oversubscription like a highway. A lower oversubscription ratio = more lanes built for the same number of drivers = less congestion but a bigger construction bill. "Low ratio = low congestion, high cost."

No community discussion yet for this question.