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 35

Question 340

At fictional Northbay Telecom, during a carrier peering cutover, engineers report: A multi-exit AS expects a specific inbound link, but peers make a different choice when MED is compared out of the intended context. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The peer moves to Established with the agreed local and remote AS values and appropriate session messages.
  2. The shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes.
  3. The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.
  4. Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed BGP MED neighbor consideration condition. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

B:

This measurement tests RIB group route sharing; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed BGP MED neighbor consideration condition. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

C:

The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state. That establishes BGP next-hop reachability rather than a repaired BGP MED neighbor consideration path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.

Question 341

During a redundant core router pair at fictional Silverstone Wireless, the team observes: A two-router fiber circuit is configured as a broadcast OSPF segment and waits for a DR that adds no benefit. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency.
  2. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.
  3. IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.
  4. OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A two-router fiber circuit is configured as a broadcast OSPF segment and waits for a DR that adds no benefit. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting OSPF area identity mismatch, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for OSPF point-to-point topology. The relevant distinction is: OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

C:

Although integrated routing and bridging needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting OSPF MTU negotiation, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for OSPF point-to-point topology. The relevant distinction is: OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Question 342

A fictional service-provider team at Hawthorne Metro is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: A new path uses large traffic-engineering-like costs, but inconsistent IS-IS metric style creates unpredictable reachability across routers. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Align the port's supported flexible VLAN tagging and per-unit encapsulation with the intended service frame format.
  2. Set compatible IS-IS circuit levels on both ends of the interface and verify hello and neighbor state.
  3. Align compatible wide-metric support across the IS-IS domain and validate advertised metrics and SPF path selection.
  4. Give each router a unique system ID and a NET whose area portion matches intended Level 1 membership.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Align compatible wide-metric support across the IS-IS domain and validate advertised metrics and SPF path selection. This treats the fault shown by Hawthorne Metro: IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation. Confirm success when all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Align the port's supported flexible VLAN tagging and per-unit encapsulation with the intended service frame format. This addresses flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, but the reported symptoms arise from IS-IS wide metrics. For this case, verify instead that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

B:

The proposal changes IS-IS adjacency circuit level; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS wide metrics unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

D:

The proposal changes IS-IS NET and system ID; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS wide metrics unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

Question 343

The operations group at fictional Sprucewell Transit, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: Two IS-IS nodes in the same Level 1 area fail adjacency after one receives a NET with an incompatible area portion. Which 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. Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements.
  3. Give each router a unique system ID and a NET whose area portion matches intended Level 1 membership.
  4. Verify LAN circuit type, DIS election priorities, and pseudonode LSP origin under the planned shared-segment design.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Give each router a unique system ID and a NET whose area portion matches intended Level 1 membership. This treats the fault shown by Sprucewell Transit: the IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node. Confirm success when neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path. That could help in a case involving MPLS label stack bottom bit. This failure instead depends on IS-IS NET and system ID; the IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

B:

Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. Its normal acceptance signal would be the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. Here the deciding check is different: neighbor state and system IDs show unique routers, and Level 1 adjacency establishes only among compatible area peers.

D:

Verify LAN circuit type, DIS election priorities, and pseudonode LSP origin under the planned shared-segment design. That could help in a case involving IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system. This failure instead depends on IS-IS NET and system ID; the IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

Question 344

At fictional Northshore Digital, during a network change window, engineers report: A BGP TCP session is Established but peers exchange IPv4 routes only; expected IPv6 unicast routes are absent. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent.
  2. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.
  3. IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.
  4. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable and verify negotiated IPv6-unicast capability and matching route-policy handling on the BGP peers.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent. Those conditions do not account for the specific multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI problem reported by Northshore Digital.

B:

IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute. Those conditions do not account for the specific multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI problem reported by Northshore Digital.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IPv6 static next-hop scope, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI. The relevant distinction is: MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Question 345

During a carrier peering cutover at fictional Summit Gate Network, the team observes: Two aggregated Ethernet endpoints disagree on LACP mode or member parameters, and one interface is not collecting traffic. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route.
  2. An IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity.
  3. LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation.
  4. GRES preserves forwarding and kernel state but does not by itself preserve all routing or bridging state; NSB targets bridge continuity and NSR or graceful restart addresses routing continuity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align LACP negotiation and member compatibility on both ends, then verify collecting and distributing member state. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two aggregated Ethernet endpoints disagree on LACP mode or member parameters, and one interface is not collecting traffic. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route. That describes BFD fast failure detection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by LACP aggregation consistency; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for LACP aggregation consistency. The relevant distinction is: LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation.

D:

GRES preserves forwarding and kernel state but does not by itself preserve all routing or bridging state; NSB targets bridge continuity and NSR or graceful restart addresses routing continuity. That describes GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by LACP aggregation consistency; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 346

A fictional service-provider team at Summit Gate Network is reviewing a redundant core router pair. The finding is: A label stack includes a transport and service label, yet diagnostic tooling interprets the top label as bottom-of-stack and misroutes analysis. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Review per-link reserved and unreserved bandwidth before creating or resizing TE tunnels.
  2. Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests.
  3. Review tunnel transport security requirements and verify encryption rather than accepting GRE setup as proof of privacy.
  4. Audit MPLS forwarding tables and labeled traffic counters after routing or hardware transitions.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests. This monitors the behavior that failed at Summit Gate Network; the most useful acceptance signal is that traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Review per-link reserved and unreserved bandwidth before creating or resizing TE tunnels. That ongoing check is for RSVP path bandwidth admission; it would not reliably detect recurrence of MPLS label stack bottom bit. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

C:

The control protects GRE confidentiality limitation. It does not establish the ongoing MPLS label stack bottom bit behavior required in this network. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

D:

Audit MPLS forwarding tables and labeled traffic counters after routing or hardware transitions. The monitored boundary differs from MPLS label stack bottom bit, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. The MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

Question 347

The operations group at fictional Jasper Data Works, working on a multi-tenant service turn-up, finds: Two gateway routers use inconsistent VRRP group IDs and therefore fail to provide a common active virtual router. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test forwarding, bridge MAC state, and protocol-neighbor continuity separately during redundant Routing Engine failover drills.
  2. Exercise VRRP failover and confirm virtual gateway reachability under device and link failure.
  3. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.
  4. Test BFD session negotiation and routing reaction times during controlled failures.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Exercise VRRP failover and confirm virtual gateway reachability under device and link failure. This monitors the behavior that failed at Jasper Data Works; the most useful acceptance signal is that the same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects GRES preserves forwarding not protocols. It does not establish the ongoing VRRP virtual gateway failover behavior required in this network. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.

C:

The control protects IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering. It does not establish the ongoing VRRP virtual gateway failover behavior required in this network. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.

D:

This is a useful guard against BFD fast failure detection, but it is not scoped to the observed VRRP virtual gateway failover failure. An appropriate test would show that the same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test.

Question 348

At fictional Cypress Fiber, during a network change window, engineers report: After a traffic surge, a new RSVP LSP takes an unexpected detour because the candidate link lacks unreserved bandwidth. 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 intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.
  3. The LSP shows a completed RSVP reservation and an operational signaled path through intended hops.
  4. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session. That establishes LDP neighbor discovery rather than a repaired RSVP path bandwidth admission path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.

C:

The check is meaningful for RSVP PATH and RESV signaling, but it does not prove that RSVP path bandwidth admission was repaired. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

D:

This measurement tests GRE endpoint underlay routing; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed RSVP path bandwidth admission condition. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

Question 349

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Meadowrise Internet, the team observes: A segment-routing route is advertised but routers map its global prefix SID to inconsistent MPLS labels after different SRGB ranges are configured. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.
  2. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.
  3. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  4. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A segment-routing route is advertised but routers map its global prefix SID to inconsistent MPLS labels after different SRGB ranges are configured. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting routing instance separation, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for segment routing prefix SID. The relevant distinction is: SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

B:

Although RSVP PATH and RESV signaling needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

C:

LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding. Those conditions do not account for the specific segment routing prefix SID problem reported by Meadowrise Internet.

Question 350

A fictional service-provider team at Elmbridge Networks is reviewing a redundant core router pair. The finding is: An engineer expects a VLAN created in a virtual-switch instance to be usable by ports in another switching instance without assignment. 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. Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks.
  3. Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events.
  4. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Compare instance membership, VLAN mappings, and MAC tables for cross-tenant isolation at each deployment. This monitors the behavior that failed at Elmbridge Networks; the most useful acceptance signal is that the same VLAN numbers can exist where supported without unintended MAC or broadcast leakage across isolated virtual switches.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks. The monitored boundary differs from virtual-switch instance isolation, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

C:

The control protects MAC address learning and moves. It does not establish the ongoing virtual-switch instance isolation behavior required in this network. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

D:

Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion. That ongoing check is for IS-IS wide metrics; it would not reliably detect recurrence of virtual-switch instance isolation. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

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