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 25

Question 240

At fictional Northshore Digital, during a network change window, engineers report: An aggregation policy announces a summary after all contributing more-specific routes vanish, misleading a downstream provider during an outage. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.
  2. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.
  3. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.
  4. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align aggregate generation with present contributing routes and confirm the discard or reject behavior and intentional export policy.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting filter-based forwarding table selection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for aggregate route contributor. The relevant distinction is: an aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

C:

VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses. That describes VRRP virtual gateway failover, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by aggregate route contributor; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. Those conditions do not account for the specific aggregate route contributor problem reported by Northshore Digital.

Question 241

During a wholesale access handoff at fictional Maplewood Exchange, the team observes: An LSP is signaled as Up but the transit FIB points an incoming label to a disabled interface. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress.
  2. Tune the intended OSPF interface costs and verify SPF-selected reachability for the affected destinations.
  3. Inspect transit MPLS forwarding entries and repair the mismatched label-to-next-hop mapping or underlying interface path.
  4. Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inspect transit MPLS forwarding entries and repair the mismatched label-to-next-hop mapping or underlying interface path. This treats the fault shown by Maplewood Exchange: control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct. Confirm success when incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes penultimate hop popping; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave MPLS label forwarding table mismatch unresolved even if its own test passed. Control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct.

B:

Tune the intended OSPF interface costs and verify SPF-selected reachability for the affected destinations. Its normal acceptance signal would be the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails. Here the deciding check is different: incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

D:

Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path. This addresses MPLS label stack bottom bit, but the reported symptoms arise from MPLS label forwarding table mismatch. For this case, verify instead that incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

Question 242

A fictional service-provider team at Ridgefield Carrier is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: A shared access segment has unexpected forwarding behavior after root failure because alternate and designated roles were not identified. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.
  2. Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU.
  3. Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance.
  4. Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms. This monitors the behavior that failed at Ridgefield Carrier; the most useful acceptance signal is that the alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes. The monitored boundary differs from RSTP alternate port reconvergence, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

B:

This is a useful guard against RSTP edge BPDU protection, but it is not scoped to the observed RSTP alternate port reconvergence failure. An appropriate test would show that the alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.

C:

This is a useful guard against RSTP loop protection, but it is not scoped to the observed RSTP alternate port reconvergence failure. An appropriate test would show that the alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.

Question 243

The operations group at fictional Silverstone Wireless, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: A GRE tunnel interface shows configured addresses but no traffic passes after the remote outer IP endpoint loses reachability. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.
  2. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  3. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.
  4. An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. It would validate a separate IS-IS LSP database synchronization operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.

C:

This measurement tests GRE tunnel path MTU; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed GRE endpoint underlay routing condition. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

D:

This measurement tests GRE confidentiality limitation; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed GRE endpoint underlay routing condition. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

Question 244

At fictional Northshore Digital, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: An iBGP route is received with valid attributes but is inactive because its next hop is not resolvable in the routing table. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks.
  2. Monitor hidden BGP routes and next-hop resolution after IGP or route-reflector changes.
  3. Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions.
  4. Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Monitor hidden BGP routes and next-hop resolution after IGP or route-reflector changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Northshore Digital; the most useful acceptance signal is that the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects native untagged VLAN drift. It does not establish the ongoing BGP next-hop reachability behavior required in this network. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

C:

The control protects BGP local preference. It does not establish the ongoing BGP next-hop reachability behavior required in this network. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

D:

Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes. The monitored boundary differs from BGP next-hop reachability, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

Question 245

During a network change window at fictional Tidewater Hosting, the team observes: An engineer raises MED to make a link more attractive, although the routing design assumes a lower comparable MED is preferred. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies.
  2. Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive.
  3. Align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC.
  4. Correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies. This treats the fault shown by Tidewater Hosting: MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks. Confirm success when comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive. This addresses AS-path prepend inbound influence, but the reported symptoms arise from BGP MED neighbor consideration. For this case, verify instead that comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

C:

Align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC. Its normal acceptance signal would be the prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination. Here the deciding check is different: comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

D:

The proposal changes BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave BGP MED neighbor consideration unresolved even if its own test passed. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

Question 246

A fictional service-provider team at Valleycrest Internet is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: A dual-stack backbone route resolves for IPv4 but the equivalent IPv6 static route is hidden because its next-hop scope is incorrect. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.
  2. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.
  3. IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.
  4. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A dual-stack backbone route resolves for IPv4 but the equivalent IPv6 static route is hidden because its next-hop scope is incorrect. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IPv6 static next-hop scope. The relevant distinction is: IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IPv6 static next-hop scope. The relevant distinction is: IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

D:

Although IS-IS route redistribution policy needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

Question 247

The operations group at fictional Meadowrise Internet, working on a provider-edge service migration, finds: After a security change, IPv6 forwarding collapses while IPv4 ARP still works because Neighbor Solicitation traffic is filtered. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.
  2. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.
  3. The intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.
  4. Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters. That establishes GRE tunnel path MTU rather than a repaired IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

C:

The intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface. That establishes IPv6 static next-hop scope rather than a repaired IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

D:

This measurement tests IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering condition. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

Question 248

At fictional Northbay Telecom, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: A multi-service interface must accept mixed VLAN encapsulations, but the physical and logical unit tagging settings disagree. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health.
  2. Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port.
  3. Compare instance membership, VLAN mappings, and MAC tables for cross-tenant isolation at each deployment.
  4. Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port. This monitors the behavior that failed at Northbay Telecom; the most useful acceptance signal is that the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health. The monitored boundary differs from flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

C:

Compare instance membership, VLAN mappings, and MAC tables for cross-tenant isolation at each deployment. That ongoing check is for virtual-switch instance isolation; it would not reliably detect recurrence of flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

D:

Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events. The monitored boundary differs from flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

Question 249

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Lighthouse Education, the team observes: After enabling MPLS forwarding on a new link, Junos does not discover an LDP neighbor because LDP discovery is not enabled on that interface. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path.
  2. Enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state.
  3. Inspect the IS-IS link-state database and CSNP/PSNP exchange to resolve synchronization or flooding problems.
  4. Restore IP reachability to the negotiated LDP transport addresses and verify the TCP session and label exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state. This treats the fault shown by Lighthouse Education: LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP. Confirm success when the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes MPLS label stack bottom bit; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave LDP neighbor discovery unresolved even if its own test passed. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

C:

Inspect the IS-IS link-state database and CSNP/PSNP exchange to resolve synchronization or flooding problems. Its normal acceptance signal would be the two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. Here the deciding check is different: the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

D:

Restore IP reachability to the negotiated LDP transport addresses and verify the TCP session and label exchange. That could help in a case involving LDP transport address reachability. This failure instead depends on LDP neighbor discovery; LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

Question 250

A fictional service-provider team at Coppercrest Cloud is reviewing a dual-stack transit pilot. The finding is: An alternate port stops receiving BPDUs during a one-way failure and risks incorrectly transitioning to forwarding. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Audit VSTP per-VLAN root topology after new VLAN or trunk additions.
  2. Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests.
  3. Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms.
  4. Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance. This monitors the behavior that failed at Coppercrest Cloud; the most useful acceptance signal is that the impacted non-designated port stays protected while BPDUs are absent and returns only after control-plane health is restored.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Audit VSTP per-VLAN root topology after new VLAN or trunk additions. That ongoing check is for VSTP per-VLAN root choice; it would not reliably detect recurrence of RSTP loop protection. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

B:

The control protects MPLS label stack bottom bit. It does not establish the ongoing RSTP loop protection behavior required in this network. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

C:

Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms. The monitored boundary differs from RSTP loop protection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

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