McAfee Secure

Exam Code: JN0-364

Exam Name: Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP)

Certification Provider: Juniper

Questions & Answers

Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

Study with Up-To-Date REAL Exam Questions and Answers from the ACTUAL Test

Questions & Answers

69 Questions & Answers with Testing Engine

"Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) Exam", also known as JN0-364 exam, is a Juniper certification exam.

Pass your tests with the always up-to-date JN0-364 Exam Engine. Your JN0-364 training materials keep you at the head of the pack!

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Was: $137.49
Now: $124.99

Juniper JN0-364 Practice Test 12

Question 110

A fictional service-provider team at Maplewood Exchange is reviewing a dual-stack transit pilot. The finding is: A regional peer receives routes but a community-based steering policy fails because the expected community was never attached. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes.
  2. Audit route-reflector client assignments and reflected prefix visibility during iBGP topology changes.
  3. Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates.
  4. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates. This monitors the behavior that failed at Maplewood Exchange; the most useful acceptance signal is that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against BGP MED neighbor consideration, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP communities and routing policy failure. An appropriate test would show that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

B:

This is a useful guard against IBGP route reflection, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP communities and routing policy failure. An appropriate test would show that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

D:

Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion. That ongoing check is for IS-IS wide metrics; it would not reliably detect recurrence of BGP communities and routing policy. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

Question 111

The operations group at fictional Sprucewell Transit, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: Two IS-IS nodes in the same Level 1 area fail adjacency after one receives a NET with an incompatible area portion. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables.
  2. The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.
  3. The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.
  4. Neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables. It would validate a separate IS-IS TLV reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

B:

The check is meaningful for OSPF hello and dead timers, but it does not prove that IS-IS NET and system ID was repaired. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

C:

The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. That establishes IS-IS LSP database synchronization rather than a repaired IS-IS NET and system ID path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

Question 112

At fictional Silverstone Wireless, during a backbone recovery drill, engineers report: An IS-IS adjacency looks healthy but a router still holds older link-state information and computes a route through a removed link. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.
  2. The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.
  3. The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election.
  4. The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. It would validate a separate IS-IS route redistribution policy operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.

C:

The check is meaningful for IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system, but it does not prove that IS-IS LSP database synchronization was repaired. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

D:

The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active. That establishes martian source address rejection rather than a repaired IS-IS LSP database synchronization path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.

Question 113

During an intercity fiber refresh at fictional Harborfield Datacenter, the team observes: An operator expects intra-area router LSAs to flood directly through an ABR into a different area rather than seeing summary information. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.
  2. Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection.
  3. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.
  4. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.

Incorrect Answers

A:

OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch. That describes OSPF hello and dead timers, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by OSPF area LSA propagation; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

Although RSTP root protection needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

C:

OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF area LSA propagation problem reported by Harborfield Datacenter.

Question 114

A fictional service-provider team at Northshore Digital is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: A BGP TCP session is Established but peers exchange IPv4 routes only; expected IPv6 unicast routes are absent. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes.
  2. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.
  3. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.
  4. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Northshore Digital; the most useful acceptance signal is that BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion. The monitored boundary differs from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

C:

The control protects IPv6 static next-hop scope. It does not establish the ongoing multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI behavior required in this network. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

D:

The control protects IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering. It does not establish the ongoing multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI behavior required in this network. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Question 115

The operations group at fictional Tidewater Hosting, working on a regional backbone upgrade, finds: A service operator edits the global routing table expecting an isolated routing instance to follow the new route, but its traffic does not change. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.
  2. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.
  3. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.
  4. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service operator edits the global routing table expecting an isolated routing instance to follow the new route, but its traffic does not change. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations. That describes martian source address rejection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by routing instance separation; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

Although EBGP multihop reachability needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.

D:

Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet. Those conditions do not account for the specific routing instance separation problem reported by Tidewater Hosting.

Question 116

At fictional Riverbend Exchange, during a carrier peering cutover, engineers report: A backbone router carries Level 2 topology yet an adjacent Level 1-only router cannot select an inter-area route through the planned L1-L2 border. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing.
  2. Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements.
  3. Verify LAN circuit type, DIS election priorities, and pseudonode LSP origin under the planned shared-segment design.
  4. Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination. This treats the fault shown by Riverbend Exchange: IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak. Confirm success when the Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing. This addresses integrated routing and bridging, but the reported symptoms arise from IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability. For this case, verify instead that the Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

B:

Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. That could help in a case involving IS-IS route redistribution policy. This failure instead depends on IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability; IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.

C:

Verify LAN circuit type, DIS election priorities, and pseudonode LSP origin under the planned shared-segment design. That could help in a case involving IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system. This failure instead depends on IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability; IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.

Question 117

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Alderbrook Transit, the team observes: An IS-IS L1/L2 backbone is stable for IPv4 but does not advertise IPv6 reachability TLVs after an address-family migration. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The same VLAN numbers can exist where supported without unintended MAC or broadcast leakage across isolated virtual switches.
  2. BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.
  3. Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.
  4. IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for virtual-switch instance isolation, but it does not prove that IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs was repaired. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

B:

This measurement tests multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs condition. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

C:

This measurement tests IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs condition. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

Question 118

A fictional service-provider team at Deltawood Hosting is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: A provider backbone changes a loopback route and loses LDP sessions while IGP adjacency remains stable on the physical link. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state.
  2. Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection.
  3. Restore IP reachability to the negotiated LDP transport addresses and verify the TCP session and label exchange.
  4. Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Restore IP reachability to the negotiated LDP transport addresses and verify the TCP session and label exchange. This treats the fault shown by Deltawood Hosting: LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery. Confirm success when the LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes LDP neighbor discovery; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave LDP transport address reachability unresolved even if its own test passed. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery.

B:

Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection. This addresses BGP local preference, but the reported symptoms arise from LDP transport address reachability. For this case, verify instead that the LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.

D:

The proposal changes MPLS label stack bottom bit; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave LDP transport address reachability unresolved even if its own test passed. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery.

Question 119

The operations group at fictional Seabright Networks, working on a network change window, finds: A route to the GRE destination is accidentally learned through the GRE tunnel itself, making the tunnel recursively depend on its own forwarding. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.
  2. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.
  3. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.
  4. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Although GRE confidentiality limitation needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting GRE tunnel path MTU, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for GRE recursive route avoidance. The relevant distinction is: A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

D:

Although BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

Question 120

At fictional Sprucewell Transit, during a metro aggregation ring, engineers report: A customer-facing edge port accidentally connects to another switch that begins sending BPDUs and threatens the access topology. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.
  2. The impacted non-designated port stays protected while BPDUs are absent and returns only after control-plane health is restored.
  3. An unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.
  4. Each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

An unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests MPLS label forwarding table mismatch; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed RSTP edge BPDU protection condition. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

B:

The impacted non-designated port stays protected while BPDUs are absent and returns only after control-plane health is restored. It would validate a separate RSTP loop protection operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that an unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.

D:

This measurement tests VSTP per-VLAN root choice; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed RSTP edge BPDU protection condition. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) (JN0-364) Practice Tests