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 43

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.

Question 421

During a backbone recovery drill at fictional Pinecrest Hosting, the team observes: A router-ID change during a maintenance event causes unexpected LSA identity churn despite stable physical interface addresses. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Assign each OSPF router a unique stable router ID and confirm the resulting neighbor and link-state database identities.
  2. Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check.
  3. Adjust the RSVP-TE bandwidth request or planned constraint-capable path and validate reservation availability.
  4. Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Assign each OSPF router a unique stable router ID and confirm the resulting neighbor and link-state database identities. This treats the fault shown by Pinecrest Hosting: OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity. Confirm success when every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check. That could help in a case involving OSPF MTU negotiation. This failure instead depends on stable OSPF router identifier; OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.

C:

The proposal changes RSVP path bandwidth admission; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave stable OSPF router identifier unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.

D:

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. That could help in a case involving OSPF external route export. This failure instead depends on stable OSPF router identifier; OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A router-ID change during a maintenance event causes unexpected LSA identity churn despite stable physical interface addresses. The question asks which focused engineering action would best correct the fault.

Question 422

A fictional service-provider team at Willowrise Transport is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: Two equal-cost upstream paths appear in the routing table, yet traffic statistics show packets use only one forwarding next hop. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior.
  2. Apply a narrowly scoped ingress filter-based-forwarding match that selects the intended forwarding routing instance and validate lookup there.
  3. Validate eligible equal-cost next hops and the configured forwarding-table export load-balancing behavior, measuring distribution across multiple flows.
  4. Install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Validate eligible equal-cost next hops and the configured forwarding-table export load-balancing behavior, measuring distribution across multiple flows. This treats the fault shown by Willowrise Transport: equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. Confirm success when the forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes generated route qualified next hop; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave equal-cost forwarding flow hashing unresolved even if its own test passed. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

B:

Apply a narrowly scoped ingress filter-based-forwarding match that selects the intended forwarding routing instance and validate lookup there. That could help in a case involving filter-based forwarding table selection. 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.

D:

Install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel. That could help in a case involving GRE recursive route avoidance. 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.

Question 423

The operations group at fictional Coastline Carrier, working on a virtual-router integration, finds: A shared Ethernet OSPF segment elects an unexpected DR after its existing DR leaves, even though a new high-priority router is added. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Audit network type against actual link topology during edge circuit deployment.
  2. Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests.
  3. Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery.
  4. Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery. This monitors the behavior that failed at Coastline Carrier; the most useful acceptance signal is that the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Audit network type against actual link topology during edge circuit deployment. That ongoing check is for OSPF point-to-point topology; it would not reliably detect recurrence of OSPF designated router election. OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR.

B:

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 OSPF designated router election. OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR.

D:

This is a useful guard against BGP communities and routing policy, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF designated router election failure. An appropriate test would show that the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

Question 424

At fictional Coastline Carrier, during an intercity fiber refresh, engineers report: Two VLANs need separate planned roots, but a single global STP assumption makes both take the same undesirable transit path. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Align MST region name, revision, and VLAN-to-instance mapping across all intended region members.
  2. Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation.
  3. Use loop protection on appropriate nondesignated interfaces and verify the safe state during missing-BPDU events.
  4. Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs. This treats the fault shown by Coastline Carrier: VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN. Confirm success when each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Align MST region name, revision, and VLAN-to-instance mapping across all intended region members. This addresses MSTP region consistency, but the reported symptoms arise from VSTP per-VLAN root choice. For this case, verify instead that each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two VLANs need separate planned roots, but a single global STP assumption makes both take the same undesirable transit path. The question asks which focused engineering action would best correct the fault.

B:

Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation. This addresses GRE confidentiality limitation, but the reported symptoms arise from VSTP per-VLAN root choice. For this case, verify instead that each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop.

C:

Use loop protection on appropriate nondesignated interfaces and verify the safe state during missing-BPDU events. That could help in a case involving RSTP loop protection. This failure instead depends on VSTP per-VLAN root choice; VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN.

Question 425

During a multi-tenant service turn-up at fictional Eastlake Services, the team observes: A new region is missing reflected route reachability because the route reflector does not classify intended clients correctly. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.
  2. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.
  3. Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception.
  4. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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. 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 networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session. Those conditions do not account for the specific IBGP route reflection problem reported by Eastlake Services.

B:

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. 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 networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting OSPF point-to-point topology, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IBGP route reflection. The relevant distinction is: ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception.

Question 426

A fictional service-provider team at Alderbrook Transit is reviewing a dual-stack transit pilot. The finding is: A BGP peer stays in OpenSent after a remote peer AS was entered incorrectly on the Junos neighbor configuration. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.
  2. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.
  3. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.
  4. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A BGP peer stays in OpenSent after a remote peer AS was entered incorrectly on the Junos neighbor configuration. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers. Those conditions do not account for the specific BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation problem reported by Alderbrook Transit.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting BGP local preference, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation. The relevant distinction is: BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.

D:

MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks. That describes BGP MED neighbor consideration, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 427

The operations group at fictional Coppercrest Cloud, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: Neighboring IS-IS devices exchange physical frames but one interface is Level 1-only while the peer runs Level 2-only. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Check interface level settings on both ends during migration and alert on missing expected adjacency levels.
  2. Compare LSDB consistency and stale LSP age on critical adjacencies after link flaps.
  3. Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades.
  4. Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Check interface level settings on both ends during migration and alert on missing expected adjacency levels. This monitors the behavior that failed at Coppercrest Cloud; the most useful acceptance signal is that the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The control protects IS-IS LSP database synchronization. It does not establish the ongoing IS-IS adjacency circuit level behavior required in this network. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

C:

Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades. That ongoing check is for IS-IS TLV reachability; it would not reliably detect recurrence of IS-IS adjacency circuit level. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

D:

Validate MST digest and instance mapping consistency as part of configuration review. The monitored boundary differs from IS-IS adjacency circuit level, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

Question 428

At fictional Winterfield Utilities, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: A leaked control-plane prefix uses a reserved destination range, but an edge engineer wants to make it active through higher preference. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active.
  2. The generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop.
  3. The forwarding table contains the intended next-hop set and several independent flows distribute across healthy equal-cost paths.
  4. Adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The inappropriate prefix is absent or rejected while legitimate provider routes remain eligible and active. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A leaked control-plane prefix uses a reserved destination range, but an edge engineer wants to make it active through higher preference. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop. That establishes generated route qualified next hop 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.

C:

This measurement tests equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed martian source address rejection condition. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

D:

The check is meaningful for MSTP region consistency, 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.

Question 429

During a backbone recovery drill at fictional Meridian Cloud, the team observes: A network migration changes the native VLAN on one end of an 802.1Q trunk but not on the other, causing intermittent untagged host reachability. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits.
  2. Validate eligible equal-cost next hops and the configured forwarding-table export load-balancing behavior, measuring distribution across multiple flows.
  3. Configure the appropriate provider bridge service tag and preserve customer inner tags across the carrier handoff.
  4. Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic. This treats the fault shown by Meridian Cloud: A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain. Confirm success when untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits. This addresses provider bridging MTU overhead, but the reported symptoms arise from native untagged VLAN drift. For this case, verify instead that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

B:

The proposal changes equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave native untagged VLAN drift unresolved even if its own test passed. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

C:

Configure the appropriate provider bridge service tag and preserve customer inner tags across the carrier handoff. That could help in a case involving provider Q-in-Q tagging. This failure instead depends on native untagged VLAN drift; A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

Question 430

A fictional service-provider team at Stonewell Fiber is reviewing a provider-edge service migration. The finding is: A routing process restarts but downstream peers immediately flush its prefixes, contrary to the operator's expectation of graceful preservation. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Configure and verify compatible protocol graceful-restart capability and planned helper behavior between neighbors.
  2. Keep GRES for forwarding continuity and enable the appropriate supported NSB for bridging or NSR or graceful restart for routing sessions as required.
  3. Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs.
  4. Align VRRP group, virtual gateway addressing and priority settings and verify master-to-backup handover.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Configure and verify compatible protocol graceful-restart capability and planned helper behavior between neighbors. This treats the fault shown by Stonewell Fiber: graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine. Confirm success when during a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Keep GRES for forwarding continuity and enable the appropriate supported NSB for bridging or NSR or graceful restart for routing sessions as required. That could help in a case involving GRES preserves forwarding not protocols. This failure instead depends on graceful restart peer assistance; graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.

C:

Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs. Its normal acceptance signal would be each VLAN's spanning-tree state selects its planned root and forwarding ports without creating a cross-VLAN loop. Here the deciding check is different: during a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.

D:

Align VRRP group, virtual gateway addressing and priority settings and verify master-to-backup handover. That could help in a case involving VRRP virtual gateway failover. This failure instead depends on graceful restart peer assistance; graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.

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