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 28

Question 270

A fictional service-provider team at Coastline Carrier is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: After adding a new circuit to an ae bundle, only some links forward because their LACP keys or compatibility settings differ. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.
  2. During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.
  3. The same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test.
  4. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation.

Incorrect Answers

B:

During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly. That establishes graceful restart peer assistance rather than a repaired LACP aggregation consistency path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

C:

The same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test. It would validate a separate VRRP virtual gateway failover operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

D:

The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology. It would validate a separate IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

Question 271

The operations group at fictional Stonewell Fiber, working on a regional backbone upgrade, finds: After a core reboot, some prefixes forward without labels because the LDP binding table has not converged for the selected next hop. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.
  2. Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.
  3. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.
  4. The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After a core reboot, some prefixes forward without labels because the LDP binding table has not converged for the selected next hop. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings. It would validate a separate LDP transport address reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.

B:

This measurement tests MPLS label forwarding table mismatch; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed LDP label binding completeness condition. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

C:

The check is meaningful for IS-IS adjacency circuit level, but it does not prove that LDP label binding completeness was repaired. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

Question 272

At fictional Meadowrise Internet, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: A bridging loop causes the same source MAC to appear alternately on multiple interfaces, but operators assume it is a routing protocol fault. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.
  2. Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.
  3. Hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly.
  4. Hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Ethernet bridges learn destination forwarding from observed source MAC addresses; unstable topology can continually invalidate learned ports. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A bridging loop causes the same source MAC to appear alternately on multiple interfaces, but operators assume it is a routing protocol fault. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end. That establishes IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay rather than a repaired MAC address learning and moves path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

C:

Hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly. It would validate a separate integrated routing and bridging operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

D:

This measurement tests VLAN access trunk distinction; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed MAC address learning and moves condition. Ethernet bridges learn destination forwarding from observed source MAC addresses; unstable topology can continually invalidate learned ports.

Question 273

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Everfield Rail, the team observes: A new static route points to a peer address learned only through the same failed path, leaving the destination absent from the forwarding table. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change.
  2. Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes.
  3. Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU.
  4. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Everfield Rail; the most useful acceptance signal is that the intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change. That ongoing check is for equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; it would not reliably detect recurrence of static route next-hop resolution. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.

C:

This is a useful guard against RSTP edge BPDU protection, but it is not scoped to the observed static route next-hop resolution failure. An appropriate test would show that the intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table.

D:

Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes. That ongoing check is for aggregate route contributor; it would not reliably detect recurrence of static route next-hop resolution. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.

Question 274

A fictional service-provider team at Pinecrest Hosting is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: An application complains about intermittent failures across GRE while DF-set oversized probes fail and ordinary ICMP ping succeeds. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  2. Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.
  3. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.
  4. The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer. That establishes GRE endpoint underlay routing rather than a repaired GRE tunnel path MTU path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.

B:

Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed. It would validate a separate BGP communities and routing policy operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.

D:

The check is meaningful for GRE recursive route avoidance, but it does not prove that GRE tunnel path MTU was repaired. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

Question 275

The operations group at fictional Meadowrise Internet, working on a virtual-router integration, finds: A bridging loop causes the same source MAC to appear alternately on multiple interfaces, but operators assume it is a routing protocol fault. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Compare instance membership, VLAN mappings, and MAC tables for cross-tenant isolation at each deployment.
  2. Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events.
  3. Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port.
  4. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events. This monitors the behavior that failed at Meadowrise Internet; the most useful acceptance signal is that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against virtual-switch instance isolation, but it is not scoped to the observed MAC address learning and moves failure. An appropriate test would show that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

C:

The control protects flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment. It does not establish the ongoing MAC address learning and moves behavior required in this network. Ethernet bridges learn destination forwarding from observed source MAC addresses; unstable topology can continually invalidate learned ports.

D:

Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies. That ongoing check is for IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; it would not reliably detect recurrence of MAC address learning and moves. Ethernet bridges learn destination forwarding from observed source MAC addresses; unstable topology can continually invalidate learned ports.

Question 276

At fictional Coastline Carrier, during an intercity fiber refresh, engineers report: Two VLANs need separate planned roots, but a single global STP assumption makes both take the same undesirable transit path. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU.
  2. Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms.
  3. Test MED behavior in realistic same-neighbor-AS scenarios and monitor actual received path attributes.
  4. Audit VSTP per-VLAN root topology after new VLAN or trunk additions.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Audit VSTP per-VLAN root topology after new VLAN or trunk additions. This monitors the behavior that failed at Coastline Carrier; the most useful acceptance signal is that each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU. The monitored boundary differs from VSTP per-VLAN root choice, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN.

B:

The control protects RSTP alternate port reconvergence. It does not establish the ongoing VSTP per-VLAN root choice behavior required in this network. VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN.

C:

This is a useful guard against BGP MED neighbor consideration, but it is not scoped to the observed VSTP per-VLAN root choice failure. An appropriate test would show that each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop.

Question 277

During a network change window at fictional Cypress Fiber, the team observes: After a traffic surge, a new RSVP LSP takes an unexpected detour because the candidate link lacks unreserved bandwidth. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  2. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.
  3. MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label.
  4. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to adjust the RSVP-TE bandwidth request or planned constraint-capable path and validate reservation availability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding. That describes LDP label binding completeness, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSVP path bandwidth admission; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label. That describes MPLS label push swap pop, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSVP path bandwidth admission; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch. Those conditions do not account for the specific RSVP path bandwidth admission problem reported by Cypress Fiber.

Question 278

A fictional service-provider team at Pinecrest Hosting is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: An application complains about intermittent failures across GRE while DF-set oversized probes fail and ordinary ICMP ping succeeds. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.
  2. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.
  3. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.
  4. LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to account for GRE/IP header overhead in tunnel MTU and path-MTU handling, then test large representative packets. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An application complains about intermittent failures across GRE while DF-set oversized probes fail and ordinary ICMP ping succeeds. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed. That describes GRE endpoint underlay routing, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by GRE tunnel path MTU; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting GRE recursive route avoidance, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for GRE tunnel path MTU. The relevant distinction is: GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

D:

LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation. Those conditions do not account for the specific GRE tunnel path MTU problem reported by Pinecrest Hosting.

Question 279

The operations group at fictional Unionpoint Mobile, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: A route reflector delivers customer prefixes successfully yet forwarding fails because downstream routers cannot resolve the advertised border next hop. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. External route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.
  2. The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.
  3. The peer moves to Established with the agreed local and remote AS values and appropriate session messages.
  4. The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests AS-path prepend inbound influence; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed BGP next-hop reachability condition. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

C:

The peer moves to Established with the agreed local and remote AS values and appropriate session messages. It would validate a separate BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

D:

The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers. That establishes flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment rather than a repaired BGP next-hop reachability path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

Question 280

At fictional Oakline Utilities, during a wholesale access handoff, engineers report: An IPv6 static route uses a link-local next hop without specifying the required outgoing interface, leaving route resolution ambiguous. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.
  2. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.
  3. Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table.
  4. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment. This monitors the behavior that failed at Oakline Utilities; the most useful acceptance signal is that the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks. The monitored boundary differs from IPv6 static next-hop scope, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

C:

Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table. That ongoing check is for GRE recursive route avoidance; it would not reliably detect recurrence of IPv6 static next-hop scope. IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

D:

This is a useful guard against IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, but it is not scoped to the observed IPv6 static next-hop scope failure. An appropriate test would show that the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

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