Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

Compare OSPF area IDs at both ends of every new inter-router link before production cutover. That ongoing check is for OSPF area identity mismatch; it would not reliably detect recurrence of provider bridging MTU overhead. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

Validate tag behavior, allowed VLAN membership, and connected device expectations at port provisioning. That ongoing check is for VLAN access trunk distinction; it would not reliably detect recurrence of provider bridging MTU overhead. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

Monitor high-frequency MAC moves and correlate them with spanning-tree and bridge-interface events. The monitored boundary differs from provider bridging MTU overhead, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. That could help in a case involving IS-IS route redistribution policy. This failure instead depends on equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

Align aggregate generation with present contributing routes and confirm the discard or reject behavior and intentional export policy. Its normal acceptance signal would be the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed. Here the deciding check is different: the forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths.

Inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required. This addresses routing instance separation, but the reported symptoms arise from equal-cost forwarding flow hashing. For this case, verify instead that the forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths.

The control protects integrated routing and bridging. It does not establish the ongoing IS-IS route redistribution policy behavior required in this network. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

This is a useful guard against IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS route redistribution policy failure. An appropriate test would show that the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

This is a useful guard against IS-IS NET and system ID, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS route redistribution policy failure. An appropriate test would show that the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

This is a useful guard against OSPF area LSA propagation, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF external route export failure. An appropriate test would show that the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Maintain an authoritative router-ID inventory and block duplicate assignments in provisioning checks. The monitored boundary differs from OSPF external route export, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

The control protects MPLS label push swap pop. It does not establish the ongoing OSPF external route export behavior required in this network. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

The control protects EBGP multihop reachability. It does not establish the ongoing GRES preserves forwarding not protocols behavior required in this network. 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.

Check negotiated restart capabilities, grace timers, and stale-route expiration in resilience drills. The monitored boundary differs from GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. 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.

Verify backup RE protocol-state synchronization and rehearse switchover in an approved maintenance window. The monitored boundary differs from GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. 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.

Validate VLAN-to-IRB bindings, gateway ARP or neighbor entries, and allowed cross-VLAN flows after provisioning. The monitored boundary differs from provider bridging MTU overhead, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

This is a useful guard against virtual-switch instance isolation, but it is not scoped to the observed provider bridging MTU overhead failure. An appropriate test would show that tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

The control protects multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI. It does not establish the ongoing provider bridging MTU overhead behavior required in this network. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

This is a useful guard against EBGP multihop reachability, but it is not scoped to the observed AS-path prepend inbound influence failure. An appropriate test would show that external route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.

The control protects IS-IS wide metrics. It does not establish the ongoing AS-path prepend inbound influence behavior required in this network. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

Validate local-AS and peer-AS inventory against change requests before activating external sessions. The monitored boundary differs from AS-path prepend inbound influence, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

Although integrated routing and bridging needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

Although GRE confidentiality limitation needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.

GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path. Those conditions do not account for the specific GRE endpoint underlay routing problem reported by Silverstone Wireless.

The proposal changes LACP aggregation consistency; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave integrated routing and bridging unresolved even if its own test passed. IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.

Place each tenant's ports and VLANs in the intended virtual-switch context and verify independent bridge learning. That could help in a case involving virtual-switch instance isolation. This failure instead depends on integrated routing and bridging; IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.

The proposal changes MAC address learning and moves; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave integrated routing and bridging unresolved even if its own test passed. IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.

The forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths. That establishes equal-cost forwarding flow hashing rather than a repaired martian source address rejection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly. That establishes graceful restart peer assistance rather than a repaired martian source address rejection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

The check is meaningful for generated route qualified next hop, but it does not prove that martian source address rejection was repaired. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

The control protects RSTP root protection. It does not establish the ongoing MSTP region consistency behavior required in this network. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.

This is a useful guard against VSTP per-VLAN root choice, but it is not scoped to the observed MSTP region consistency failure. An appropriate test would show that adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances.

Audit network type against actual link topology during edge circuit deployment. The monitored boundary differs from MSTP region consistency, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.