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 3

Question 20

At fictional Lighthouse Education, during a provider-edge service migration, engineers report: 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 networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.
  2. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  3. Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection.
  4. Control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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 LDP neighbor discovery; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

Although RSTP root protection needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

D:

Control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct. That describes MPLS label forwarding table mismatch, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by LDP neighbor discovery; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 21

During a dual-stack transit pilot at fictional Maplewood Exchange, the team observes: A regional peer receives routes but a community-based steering policy fails because the expected community was never attached. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct.
  2. Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.
  3. Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.
  4. The approved root remains root despite inferior-site superior-BPDU injection, and the boundary behaves as designed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct. That establishes EBGP multihop reachability rather than a repaired BGP communities and routing policy path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

C:

Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference. It would validate a separate BGP MED neighbor consideration operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

D:

This measurement tests RSTP root protection; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed BGP communities and routing policy condition. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

Question 22

A fictional service-provider team at Clearwater Transit is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: A remote area receives no inter-area prefix even though the ABR has a working backbone link and the destination exists in another area. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.
  2. The forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths.
  3. The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.
  4. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests OSPF hello and dead timers; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPF area LSA propagation condition. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

B:

The forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths. It would validate a separate equal-cost forwarding flow hashing operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

D:

The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. That establishes OSPF external route export rather than a repaired OSPF area LSA propagation path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

Question 23

The operations group at fictional Maplewood Exchange, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: An LSP is signaled as Up but the transit FIB points an incoming label to a disabled interface. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path.
  2. The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.
  3. Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.
  4. The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path. That establishes MPLS label push swap pop rather than a repaired MPLS label forwarding table mismatch path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

B:

The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state. It would validate a separate BGP next-hop reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

D:

This measurement tests segment routing prefix SID; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed MPLS label forwarding table mismatch condition. Control-plane LSP state and data-plane label forwarding entries are separate checks; an Up session does not prove the FIB is correct.

Question 24

At fictional Ridgefield Carrier, during a regional backbone upgrade, engineers report: A shared access segment has unexpected forwarding behavior after root failure because alternate and designated roles were not identified. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.
  2. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.
  3. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.
  4. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to review RSTP roles and convergence expectations and ensure the valid alternate path can transition safely when the root path fails.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting RSTP loop protection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for RSTP alternate port reconvergence. The relevant distinction is: RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

B:

Although IS-IS adjacency circuit level needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting RSTP edge BPDU protection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for RSTP alternate port reconvergence. The relevant distinction is: RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

Question 25

During a wholesale access handoff at fictional Sprucewell Transit, the team observes: Two IS-IS nodes in the same Level 1 area fail adjacency after one receives a NET with an incompatible area portion. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate NET area and system-ID uniqueness automatically before onboarding each IS-IS router.
  2. Audit MPLS forwarding tables and labeled traffic counters after routing or hardware transitions.
  3. Review IS-IS export policies against owner-approved prefix and origin criteria after service changes.
  4. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Validate NET area and system-ID uniqueness automatically before onboarding each IS-IS router. This monitors the behavior that failed at Sprucewell Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The control protects MPLS label forwarding table mismatch. It does not establish the ongoing IS-IS NET and system ID behavior required in this network. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

C:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS route redistribution policy, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS NET and system ID failure. An appropriate test would show that neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

D:

The control protects IS-IS wide metrics. It does not establish the ongoing IS-IS NET and system ID behavior required in this network. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

Question 26

A fictional service-provider team at Harborfield Datacenter is reviewing a virtual-router integration. The finding is: Security auditors observe readable payloads captured on a GRE underlay because no separate encryption protects the packets. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.
  2. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.
  3. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.
  4. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS adjacency circuit level, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for GRE confidentiality limitation. The relevant distinction is: GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

C:

A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path. Those conditions do not account for the specific GRE confidentiality limitation problem reported by Harborfield Datacenter.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting GRE tunnel path MTU, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for GRE confidentiality limitation. The relevant distinction is: GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Question 27

The operations group at fictional Fairway Telecom, working on an intercity fiber refresh, finds: A second routing table must resolve a shared loopback prefix, but the connected route is present only in the primary 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. Test BFD session negotiation and routing reaction times during controlled failures.
  3. Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables.
  4. Include reserved-prefix and martian-route validation in route import audits and configuration-change tests.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables. This monitors the behavior that failed at Fairway Telecom; the most useful acceptance signal is that the shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change. The monitored boundary differs from RIB group route sharing, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

B:

The control protects BFD fast failure detection. It does not establish the ongoing RIB group route sharing behavior required in this network. A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

D:

The control protects martian source address rejection. It does not establish the ongoing RIB group route sharing behavior required in this network. A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

Question 28

At fictional Coastline Carrier, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: A core node cannot represent a planned high link metric because the deployment still assumes narrow metrics. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements.
  2. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.
  3. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.
  4. On an IS-IS broadcast LAN the DIS originates pseudonode LSPs and may be re-elected when priority changes; the process differs from OSPF DR behavior.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align compatible wide-metric support across the IS-IS domain and validate advertised metrics and SPF path selection.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although IS-IS TLV reachability needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

C:

Although martian source address rejection needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

D:

On an IS-IS broadcast LAN the DIS originates pseudonode LSPs and may be re-elected when priority changes; the process differs from OSPF DR behavior. That describes IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IS-IS wide metrics; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 29

During a backbone recovery drill at fictional Coppercrest Cloud, the team observes: An operator thinks absence of the transport label at egress proves MPLS failed even though the prior LSR performed penultimate-hop popping. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Inspect transit MPLS forwarding entries and repair the mismatched label-to-next-hop mapping or underlying interface path.
  2. Insert the appropriate valid adjacency SID for the required hop and verify the resolved segment list and actual forwarding path.
  3. Apply root protection on boundary designated ports where upstream superiority must be blocked and verify root placement.
  4. Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress. This treats the fault shown by Coppercrest Cloud: penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing. Confirm success when the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect transit MPLS forwarding entries and repair the mismatched label-to-next-hop mapping or underlying interface path. Its normal acceptance signal would be incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding. Here the deciding check is different: the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

B:

Insert the appropriate valid adjacency SID for the required hop and verify the resolved segment list and actual forwarding path. This addresses segment routing adjacency SID, but the reported symptoms arise from penultimate hop popping. For this case, verify instead that the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

C:

Apply root protection on boundary designated ports where upstream superiority must be blocked and verify root placement. This addresses RSTP root protection, but the reported symptoms arise from penultimate hop popping. For this case, verify instead that the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

Question 30

A fictional service-provider team at Meadowrise Internet is reviewing a virtual-router integration. The finding is: A segment-routing route is advertised but routers map its global prefix SID to inconsistent MPLS labels after different SRGB ranges are configured. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades.
  2. Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance.
  3. Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes.
  4. Review per-link reserved and unreserved bandwidth before creating or resizing TE tunnels.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Validate node-SID uniqueness, advertised SRGB ranges and effective label forwarding after upgrades. This monitors the behavior that failed at Meadowrise Internet; the most useful acceptance signal is that the prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance. That ongoing check is for RSTP loop protection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of segment routing prefix SID. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

C:

The control protects LDP label binding completeness. It does not establish the ongoing segment routing prefix SID behavior required in this network. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

D:

The control protects RSVP path bandwidth admission. It does not establish the ongoing segment routing prefix SID behavior required in this network. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

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