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 37

Question 360

At fictional Eastlake Services, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: A new region is missing reflected route reachability because the route reflector does not classify intended clients correctly. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The same VLAN numbers can exist where supported without unintended MAC or broadcast leakage across isolated virtual switches.
  2. Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.
  3. Authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.
  4. Internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A new region is missing reflected route reachability because the route reflector does not classify intended clients correctly. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The same VLAN numbers can exist where supported without unintended MAC or broadcast leakage across isolated virtual switches. It would validate a separate virtual-switch instance isolation operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

B:

Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference. That establishes BGP MED neighbor consideration rather than a repaired IBGP route reflection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

D:

Internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values. That establishes BGP local preference rather than a repaired IBGP route reflection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

Question 361

During a redundant core router pair at fictional Elmbridge Networks, the team observes: An engineer expects a VLAN created in a virtual-switch instance to be usable by ports in another switching instance without assignment. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing.
  2. Place each tenant's ports and VLANs in the intended virtual-switch context and verify independent bridge learning.
  3. Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution.
  4. Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Place each tenant's ports and VLANs in the intended virtual-switch context and verify independent bridge learning. This treats the fault shown by Elmbridge Networks: virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding. Confirm success when the same VLAN numbers can exist where supported without unintended MAC or broadcast leakage across isolated virtual switches.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes integrated routing and bridging; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave virtual-switch instance isolation unresolved even if its own test passed. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

C:

The proposal changes IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave virtual-switch instance isolation unresolved even if its own test passed. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

D:

Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits. That could help in a case involving provider bridging MTU overhead. This failure instead depends on virtual-switch instance isolation; virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.

Question 362

A fictional service-provider team at Moorland Carriers is reviewing a virtual-router integration. The finding is: A subset of source traffic should traverse a security inspection RIB, but the global destination route sends it through the ordinary transit exit. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.
  2. The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.
  3. The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.
  4. The intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A subset of source traffic should traverse a security inspection RIB, but the global destination route sends it through the ordinary transit exit. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active. That establishes martian source address rejection rather than a repaired filter-based forwarding table selection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.

C:

The check is meaningful for OSPF hello and dead timers, but it does not prove that filter-based forwarding table selection was repaired. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

D:

The intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table. It would validate a separate static route next-hop resolution operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.

Question 363

The operations group at fictional Pinecrest Hosting, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: A newly imported static route should be exported into IS-IS for a limited scope, but a broad policy accidentally advertises other routes. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.
  2. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.
  3. The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election.
  4. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters. That establishes GRE tunnel path MTU rather than a repaired IS-IS route redistribution policy path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

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 the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

D:

The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged. That establishes IS-IS adjacency circuit level rather than a repaired IS-IS route redistribution policy path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

Question 364

At fictional Meadowrise Internet, during a provider-edge service migration, engineers report: The network announces a generated summary while its selected qualifying route has a next hop unsuitable for the intended exit. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.
  2. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.
  3. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.
  4. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior. Applied here, the relevant facts are: The network announces a generated summary while its selected qualifying route has a next hop unsuitable for the intended exit. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop. That describes aggregate route contributor, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by generated route qualified next hop; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another. Those conditions do not account for the specific generated route qualified next hop problem reported by Meadowrise Internet.

D:

Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear. That describes RSTP loop protection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by generated route qualified next hop; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 365

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Highpoint Exchange, the team observes: A provider ring loses control-plane BPDUs on a blocked path while physical carrier stays Up; a loop appears during reconvergence. 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. Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review.
  3. Monitor loopback transport reachability independently of LDP hello reception.
  4. Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

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

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

B:

Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review. The monitored boundary differs from RSTP loop protection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

C:

Monitor loopback transport reachability independently of LDP hello reception. The monitored boundary differs from RSTP loop protection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.

Question 366

A fictional service-provider team at Fabletree Media is reviewing a dual-stack transit pilot. The finding is: LDP sessions never form on a core interface even though the IGP route to the peer loopback is present. 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. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.
  3. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery.
  4. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: LDP sessions never form on a core interface even though the IGP route to the peer loopback is present. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC. Those conditions do not account for the specific LDP neighbor discovery problem reported by Fabletree Media.

C:

Although LDP transport address reachability 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:

Although IS-IS route redistribution policy 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.

Question 367

The operations group at fictional Pinecrest Hosting, working on a carrier peering cutover, finds: An application complains about intermittent failures across GRE while DF-set oversized probes fail and ordinary ICMP ping succeeds. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Alert on tunnel outer-endpoint reachability failures independently of inner route health.
  2. Guard tunnel outer endpoint routes against redistribution into the overlay routing table.
  3. Test tunnel path MTU and fragmentation behavior with realistic payload sizes after transport changes.
  4. Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against GRE endpoint underlay routing, but it is not scoped to the observed GRE tunnel path MTU failure. An appropriate test would show that maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.

B:

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. 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 ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring.

D:

Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables. 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 368

At fictional Sprucewell Transit, during a wholesale access handoff, engineers report: Two IS-IS nodes in the same Level 1 area fail adjacency after one receives a NET with an incompatible area portion. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.
  2. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.
  3. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.
  4. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to give each router a unique system ID and a NET whose area portion matches intended Level 1 membership. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two IS-IS nodes in the same Level 1 area fail adjacency after one receives a NET with an incompatible area portion. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although IS-IS LSP database synchronization needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

C:

MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries. Those conditions do not account for the specific IS-IS NET and system ID problem reported by Sprucewell Transit.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS adjacency circuit level, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS NET and system ID. The relevant distinction is: the IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.

Question 369

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.
  2. Check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path.
  3. Assign each OSPF router a unique stable router ID and confirm the resulting neighbor and link-state database identities.
  4. Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. This treats the fault shown by Silverstone Wireless: OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network. Confirm success when the two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area. That could help in a case involving OSPF area LSA propagation. This failure instead depends on OSPF point-to-point topology; OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

B:

The proposal changes LDP label binding completeness; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF point-to-point topology unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

C:

The proposal changes stable OSPF router identifier; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF point-to-point topology unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Question 370

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link.
  2. Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it.
  3. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.
  4. Align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area. This treats the fault shown by Clearwater Transit: OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs. Confirm success when the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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: the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

B:

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. Its normal acceptance signal would be the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. Here the deciding check is different: the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

D:

Align prefix-SID advertisements and SRGB interpretation on the participating routers and verify labels assigned for the FEC. This addresses segment routing prefix SID, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF area LSA propagation. For this case, verify instead that the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

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