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 31

Question 300

At fictional Juniper Glen Telecom, during a backbone recovery drill, engineers report: A failed root-facing link causes a long outage because the team mistakes an alternate port for a disabled edge and never validates its role. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.
  2. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.
  3. VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN.
  4. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A failed root-facing link causes a long outage because the team mistakes an alternate port for a disabled edge and never validates its role. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting GRE tunnel path MTU, 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.

C:

VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN. That describes VSTP per-VLAN root choice, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSTP alternate port reconvergence; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

Although MSTP region consistency 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.

Question 301

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection.
  2. Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link.
  3. Apply and verify the appropriate BGP community marking and matching terms on approved routes at the correct policy boundary.
  4. Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Apply and verify the appropriate BGP community marking and matching terms on approved routes at the correct policy boundary. This treats the fault shown by Maplewood Exchange: BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them. Confirm success when advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection. Its normal acceptance signal would be internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values. Here the deciding check is different: advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

B:

Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link. Its normal acceptance signal would be the pair establishes the expected OSPF adjacency with matching area assignment and reachable learned prefixes. Here the deciding check is different: advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

D:

Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies. That could help in a case involving BGP MED neighbor consideration. This failure instead depends on 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 302

A fictional service-provider team at Skybridge Metro is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: An IS-IS shared LAN floods excess link-state information after the engineer treats it as point-to-point and ignores its pseudonode. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.
  2. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.
  3. 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.
  4. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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 is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to verify LAN circuit type, DIS election priorities, and pseudonode LSP origin under the planned shared-segment design. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An IS-IS shared LAN floods excess link-state information after the engineer treats it as point-to-point and ignores its pseudonode. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS wide metrics, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system. The relevant distinction is: 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.

B:

RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient. That describes RSVP PATH and RESV signaling, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity. That describes IS-IS LSP database synchronization, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 303

The operations group at fictional Ironwood Transit, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: An operator expects an upstream static prefix to appear in OSPF, but no policy allows the correct external route to be originated. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it.
  2. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.
  3. Correct the specific BGP import or export policy at the peer or group, matching approved prefix and path criteria.
  4. Restore compatible hello and dead intervals on the neighboring OSPF interfaces and observe stable hellos.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. This treats the fault shown by Ironwood Transit: OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. Confirm success when the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area. Its normal acceptance signal would be the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology. Here the deciding check is different: the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

C:

Correct the specific BGP import or export policy at the peer or group, matching approved prefix and path criteria. That could help in a case involving BGP import export control. This failure instead depends on OSPF external route export; OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

D:

The proposal changes OSPF hello and dead timers; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF external route export unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

Question 304

At fictional Highpoint Exchange, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: A backbone migration changes one router's circuit type to Level 2 while the other endpoint remains Level 1, leaving the IS-IS adjacency absent. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.
  2. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  3. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.
  4. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A backbone migration changes one router's circuit type to Level 2 while the other endpoint remains Level 1, leaving the IS-IS adjacency absent. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers. That establishes IS-IS NET and system ID rather than a repaired IS-IS adjacency circuit level path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

B:

The check is meaningful for GRE endpoint underlay routing, but it does not prove that IS-IS adjacency circuit level was repaired. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

C:

The check is meaningful for IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but it does not prove that IS-IS adjacency circuit level was repaired. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A backbone migration changes one router's circuit type to Level 2 while the other endpoint remains Level 1, leaving the IS-IS adjacency absent. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Question 305

During an intercity fiber refresh at fictional Bluehaven Mobile, the team observes: A service provider moves a tunnel peer and forgets to update underlay routing to its GRE destination, leaving encapsulation blackholed. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.
  2. The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.
  3. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  4. The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service provider moves a tunnel peer and forgets to update underlay routing to its GRE destination, leaving encapsulation blackholed. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints. That establishes GRE confidentiality limitation rather than a repaired GRE endpoint underlay routing path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.

B:

The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel. That establishes GRE recursive route avoidance rather than a repaired GRE endpoint underlay routing path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.

D:

The check is meaningful for LDP label binding completeness, but it does not prove that GRE endpoint underlay routing was repaired. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

Question 306

A fictional service-provider team at Jasper Data Works is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: Small test packets traverse GRE successfully, but large customer packets drop after transport encapsulation adds overhead. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test tunnel path MTU and fragmentation behavior with realistic payload sizes after transport changes.
  2. Review tunnel transport security requirements and verify encryption rather than accepting GRE setup as proof of privacy.
  3. Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table.
  4. Monitor LACP partner IDs, actor keys, member state, and bundle bandwidth after changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Test tunnel path MTU and fragmentation behavior with realistic payload sizes after transport changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Jasper Data Works; the most useful acceptance signal is that maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Review tunnel transport security requirements and verify encryption rather than accepting GRE setup as proof of privacy. The monitored boundary differs from GRE tunnel path MTU, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

C:

Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table. The monitored boundary differs from GRE tunnel path MTU, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

D:

Monitor LACP partner IDs, actor keys, member state, and bundle bandwidth after changes. The monitored boundary differs from GRE tunnel path MTU, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.

Question 307

The operations group at fictional Hawthorne Metro, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: A new path uses large traffic-engineering-like costs, but inconsistent IS-IS metric style creates unpredictable reachability across routers. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. All participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.
  2. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.
  3. The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election.
  4. The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

All participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This measurement tests IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IS-IS wide metrics condition. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

C:

The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election. It would validate a separate IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

D:

The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event. It would validate a separate OSPF designated router election operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Question 308

At fictional Moorland Carriers, during a network change window, engineers report: A service packet exits a transport label tunnel but the egress processes the inner service label as though it were the final stack entry. 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 same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test.
  3. Traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.
  4. The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service packet exits a transport label tunnel but the egress processes the inner service label as though it were the final stack entry. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests MPLS label forwarding table mismatch; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed MPLS label stack bottom bit condition. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

B:

The check is meaningful for VRRP virtual gateway failover, but it does not prove that MPLS label stack bottom bit was repaired. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

D:

The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix. It would validate a separate LDP label binding completeness operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.

Question 309

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Jasper Data Works, the team observes: Two routing processes share a router ID after a cloned virtual router deployment, leading to indistinguishable LSAs. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.
  2. Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path.
  3. The two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election.
  4. Every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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 stable OSPF router identifier path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently.

B:

The check is meaningful for MPLS label push swap pop, but it does not prove that stable OSPF router identifier was repaired. OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.

C:

The two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election. That establishes OSPF point-to-point topology rather than a repaired stable OSPF router identifier path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently.

Question 310

A fictional service-provider team at Kingfisher Wholesale is reviewing a multi-tenant service turn-up. The finding is: A backup link should be traversed explicitly during a maintenance test, yet the segment list lacks a link-specific adjacency instruction. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.
  2. The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.
  3. Packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.
  4. BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A backup link should be traversed explicitly during a maintenance test, yet the segment list lacks a link-specific adjacency instruction. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources. That establishes RSVP path bandwidth admission rather than a repaired segment routing adjacency SID path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.

B:

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 packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.

D:

BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops. That establishes multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI rather than a repaired segment routing adjacency SID path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.

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