Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

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.

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.

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.

Although GRE tunnel path MTU needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Although MAC address learning and moves needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Although GRE endpoint underlay routing needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery. Those conditions do not account for the specific BFD fast failure detection problem reported by Lighthouse Education.

LACP aggregates only compatible negotiated member links; physical Up state alone does not prove active bundle participation. Those conditions do not account for the specific BFD fast failure detection problem reported by Lighthouse Education.

Although GRES preserves forwarding not protocols needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route.

Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table. Its normal acceptance signal would be the shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes. Here the deciding check is different: the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior. Its normal acceptance signal would be the generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop. Here the deciding check is different: the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

Account for GRE/IP header overhead in tunnel MTU and path-MTU handling, then test large representative packets. This addresses GRE tunnel path MTU, but the reported symptoms arise from martian source address rejection. For this case, verify instead that the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.

Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests. The monitored boundary differs from segment routing adjacency SID, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes. The monitored boundary differs from segment routing adjacency SID, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes. That ongoing check is for aggregate route contributor; it would not reliably detect recurrence of segment routing adjacency SID. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements. Those conditions do not account for the specific IS-IS LSP database synchronization problem reported by Bluehaven Mobile.

Although IS-IS adjacency circuit level needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

This principle matters when troubleshooting MAC address learning and moves, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS LSP database synchronization. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

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 tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

The check is meaningful for BGP next-hop reachability, but it does not prove that provider bridging MTU overhead was repaired. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

This measurement tests flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed provider bridging MTU overhead condition. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

The check is meaningful for virtual-switch instance isolation, but it does not prove that VRRP virtual gateway failover was repaired. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.

A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets. It would validate a separate GRES preserves forwarding not protocols operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the same virtual gateway remains reachable when the active VRRP router is failed in a controlled test.

This measurement tests graceful restart peer assistance; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed VRRP virtual gateway failover condition. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.

Assign each OSPF router a unique stable router ID and confirm the resulting neighbor and link-state database identities. This addresses stable OSPF router identifier, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF MTU negotiation. For this case, verify instead that the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

Correct the specific BGP import or export policy at the peer or group, matching approved prefix and path criteria. Its normal acceptance signal would be only approved prefixes are advertised to or accepted from the intended neighbor, as confirmed by received and advertised route views. Here the deciding check is different: the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. This addresses OSPF external route export, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF MTU negotiation. For this case, verify instead that the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

Align LACP negotiation and member compatibility on both ends, then verify collecting and distributing member state. This addresses LACP aggregation consistency, but the reported symptoms arise from NSR protocol state replication. For this case, verify instead that during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection. That could help in a case involving BFD fast failure detection. This failure instead depends on NSR protocol state replication; NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

The proposal changes OSPF interface metric selection; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave NSR protocol state replication unresolved even if its own test passed. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary. Those conditions do not account for the specific BGP local preference problem reported by Elmbridge Networks.

An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop. Those conditions do not account for the specific BGP local preference problem reported by Elmbridge Networks.

EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient. Those conditions do not account for the specific BGP local preference problem reported by Elmbridge Networks.