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 42

Question 410

A fictional service-provider team at Northshore Digital is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: An aggregation policy announces a summary after all contributing more-specific routes vanish, misleading a downstream provider during an outage. 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. Continuously compare generated route eligibility and effective next hop against the approved regional reachability plan.
  3. Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes.
  4. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Northshore Digital; the most useful acceptance signal is that the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

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 aggregate route contributor. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

B:

Continuously compare generated route eligibility and effective next hop against the approved regional reachability plan. The monitored boundary differs from aggregate route contributor, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

C:

Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes. That ongoing check is for routing instance separation; it would not reliably detect recurrence of aggregate route contributor. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

Question 411

The operations group at fictional Fairway Telecom, working on a virtual-router integration, finds: An upstream carrier should tag a customer route with a cleanup community, but the community match is absent from export policy. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Continuously diff effective import/export policies against approved prefix filters and peer relationships.
  2. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.
  3. Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates.
  4. Monitor exported AS paths and actual traffic after inbound-traffic-engineering changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates. This monitors the behavior that failed at Fairway Telecom; the most useful acceptance signal is that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against BGP import export control, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP communities and routing policy failure. An appropriate test would show that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

B:

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 BGP communities and routing policy. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

D:

Monitor exported AS paths and actual traffic after inbound-traffic-engineering changes. That ongoing check is for AS-path prepend inbound influence; it would not reliably detect recurrence of 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 412

At fictional Maplewood Exchange, during a metro aggregation ring, engineers report: A service-test routing instance fails an indirect next-hop lookup because the needed interface route was never copied to its table. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Inspect bridge MAC learning, move events, and the Layer 2 topology; remove unintended loop or incorrect forwarding path.
  2. Treat the reserved or martian prefix as invalid for production routing and correct the source instead of overriding safety rejection blindly.
  3. Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table.
  4. Inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table. This treats the fault shown by Maplewood Exchange: A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately. Confirm success when the shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect bridge MAC learning, move events, and the Layer 2 topology; remove unintended loop or incorrect forwarding path. That could help in a case involving MAC address learning and moves. This failure instead depends on RIB group route sharing; A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

B:

Treat the reserved or martian prefix as invalid for production routing and correct the source instead of overriding safety rejection blindly. Its normal acceptance signal would be the inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active. Here the deciding check is different: the shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service-test routing instance fails an indirect next-hop lookup because the needed interface route was never copied to its table. The question asks which focused engineering action would best correct the fault.

D:

Inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required. That could help in a case involving routing instance separation. This failure instead depends on RIB group route sharing; A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

Question 413

During a redundant core router pair at fictional Willowrise Transport, the team observes: Three internal BGP speakers receive routes only from their direct peers, and a route learned from iBGP is not forwarded to another iBGP peer. 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. Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive.
  3. Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection.
  4. Correct the route-reflector client topology and validate reflected path distribution without introducing loops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Correct the route-reflector client topology and validate reflected path distribution without introducing loops. This treats the fault shown by Willowrise Transport: ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception. Confirm success when authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

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: authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

B:

Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive. This addresses AS-path prepend inbound influence, but the reported symptoms arise from IBGP route reflection. For this case, verify instead that authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

C:

Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection. Its normal acceptance signal would be A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers. Here the deciding check is different: authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.

Question 414

A fictional service-provider team at Stonewell Fiber is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: After a core reboot, some prefixes forward without labels because the LDP binding table has not converged for the selected next hop. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes.
  2. Monitor RSVP reservation state and LSP establishment success, not only underlying IGP reachability.
  3. Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests.
  4. Inspect label forwarding entries at ingress, transit, and egress after every LSP change.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Stonewell Fiber; the most useful acceptance signal is that the forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Monitor RSVP reservation state and LSP establishment success, not only underlying IGP reachability. That ongoing check is for RSVP PATH and RESV signaling; it would not reliably detect recurrence of LDP label binding completeness. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

C:

Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests. That ongoing check is for OSPF interface metric selection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of LDP label binding completeness. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

D:

Inspect label forwarding entries at ingress, transit, and egress after every LSP change. The monitored boundary differs from LDP label binding completeness, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

Question 415

The operations group at fictional Willowrise Transport, working on a redundant core router pair, finds: Three internal BGP speakers receive routes only from their direct peers, and a route learned from iBGP is not forwarded to another iBGP peer. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.
  2. Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception.
  3. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  4. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to correct the route-reflector client topology and validate reflected path distribution without introducing loops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks. Those conditions do not account for the specific IBGP route reflection problem reported by Willowrise Transport.

C:

LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding. That describes LDP label binding completeness, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IBGP route reflection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation. That describes BGP next-hop reachability, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by IBGP route reflection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 416

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 observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.
  2. Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.
  3. The generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop.
  4. The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end. That establishes IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay rather than a repaired multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

C:

This measurement tests generated route qualified next hop; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI condition. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

D:

This measurement tests OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI condition. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Question 417

During a multi-tenant service turn-up at fictional Valleycrest Internet, the team observes: Two routers exchange LDP discovery hellos but cannot establish the TCP-based LDP session because one transport address is unreachable. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.
  2. Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path.
  3. The alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.
  4. The penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two routers exchange LDP discovery hellos but cannot establish the TCP-based LDP session because one transport address is unreachable. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The check is meaningful for MPLS label push swap pop, but it does not prove that LDP transport address reachability was repaired. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery.

C:

This measurement tests RSTP alternate port reconvergence; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed LDP transport address reachability condition. LDP discovery and session setup are distinct; a transport TCP connection must be reachable after hello discovery.

D:

The penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state. That establishes penultimate hop popping rather than a repaired LDP transport address reachability path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the LDP session establishes over reachable transport addresses and peers exchange expected label bindings.

Question 418

A fictional service-provider team at Summit Gate Network is reviewing a backbone recovery drill. The finding is: A provider interconnect moves the peer endpoint across two routed hops but eBGP still assumes single-hop reachability and TTL behavior. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.
  2. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.
  3. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.
  4. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to configure the appropriate EBGP multihop reachability and neighbor addressing, then verify session setup on the intended loopback endpoints. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A provider interconnect moves the peer endpoint across two routed hops but eBGP still assumes single-hop reachability and TTL behavior. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery. That describes flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by EBGP multihop reachability; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting AS-path prepend inbound influence, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for EBGP multihop reachability. The relevant distinction is: EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

D:

BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them. That describes BGP communities and routing policy, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by EBGP multihop reachability; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 419

The operations group at fictional Meadowrise Internet, working on a provider-edge service migration, finds: After a security change, IPv6 forwarding collapses while IPv4 ARP still works because Neighbor Solicitation traffic is filtered. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress.
  2. Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution.
  3. Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path.
  4. Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution. This treats the fault shown by Meadowrise Internet: IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist. Confirm success when neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress. That could help in a case involving penultimate hop popping. This failure instead depends on IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

C:

Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path. This addresses IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay, but the reported symptoms arise from IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering. For this case, verify instead that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

D:

Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes. That could help in a case involving IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs. This failure instead depends on IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

Question 420

At fictional Kingfisher Wholesale, during a regional backbone upgrade, engineers report: A Level 1 edge can reach local area prefixes but not remote areas because the design lacks an appropriate Level 2 exit. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.
  2. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.
  3. IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.
  4. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A Level 1 edge can reach local area prefixes but not remote areas because the design lacks an appropriate Level 2 exit. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although generated route qualified next hop needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS NET and system ID, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS adjacency circuit level, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS uses Level 1 within an area and Level 2 between areas; an L1 router needs an appropriate inter-area exit or route leak.

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