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 45

Question 440

At fictional Fernstone Logistics, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: Two adjacent IPv6 devices have valid unicast addresses, but ping fails because an ACL blocks required ICMPv6 neighbor discovery messages. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.
  2. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.
  3. Monitor RSVP reservation state and LSP establishment success, not only underlying IGP reachability.
  4. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies. This monitors the behavior that failed at Fernstone Logistics; the most useful acceptance signal is that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects IPv6 static next-hop scope. It does not establish the ongoing IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering behavior required in this network. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

B:

Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks. The monitored boundary differs from IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

C:

The control protects RSVP PATH and RESV signaling. It does not establish the ongoing IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering behavior required in this network. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

Question 441

During a dual-stack transit pilot at fictional Silverstone Wireless, the team observes: A service backbone needs subsecond detection, but administrators only tune route preference and leave failed neighbors in place. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.
  2. A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.
  3. A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers.
  4. The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service backbone needs subsecond detection, but administrators only tune route preference and leave failed neighbors in place. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly. It would validate a separate graceful restart peer assistance operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers.

B:

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 A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers.

D:

The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology. It would validate a separate OSPF area LSA propagation operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that A controlled link or peer failure causes BFD Down and timely routing reconvergence rather than waiting for long protocol timers.

Question 442

A fictional service-provider team at Fernstone Logistics is reviewing a backbone recovery drill. The finding is: A provider edge leaks unapproved customer prefixes to a transit provider after an export policy is broadened. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates.
  2. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.
  3. Monitor hidden BGP routes and next-hop resolution after IGP or route-reflector changes.
  4. Continuously diff effective import/export policies against approved prefix filters and peer relationships.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Continuously diff effective import/export policies against approved prefix filters and peer relationships. This monitors the behavior that failed at Fernstone Logistics; the most useful acceptance signal is that only approved prefixes are advertised to or accepted from the intended neighbor, as confirmed by received and advertised route views.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against BGP communities and routing policy, but it is not scoped to the observed BGP import export control failure. An appropriate test would show that only approved prefixes are advertised to or accepted from the intended neighbor, as confirmed by received and advertised route views.

B:

Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion. The monitored boundary differs from BGP import export control, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary.

C:

Monitor hidden BGP routes and next-hop resolution after IGP or route-reflector changes. The monitored boundary differs from BGP import export control, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary.

Question 443

The operations group at fictional Juniper Glen Telecom, working on a dual-stack transit pilot, finds: Two routers form an IS-IS adjacency but IPv6 destinations are missing because the required address-family reachability information is not advertised. 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. Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements.
  3. Inspect the supported and advertised IS-IS reachability TLVs and configure the correct address family on the relevant links.
  4. Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inspect the supported and advertised IS-IS reachability TLVs and configure the correct address family on the relevant links. This treats the fault shown by Juniper Glen Telecom: IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements. Confirm success when link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes stable OSPF router identifier; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS TLV reachability unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements.

B:

Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. Its normal acceptance signal would be the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. Here the deciding check is different: link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables.

D:

Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination. That could help in a case involving IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability. This failure instead depends on IS-IS TLV reachability; IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements.

Question 444

At fictional Unionpoint Mobile, during a redundant core router pair, engineers report: After enabling dual stack, an edge advertises a prefix under the wrong BGP address family and the neighbor never imports IPv6 reachability. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Enable and verify negotiated IPv6-unicast capability and matching route-policy handling on the BGP peers.
  2. Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation.
  3. Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs.
  4. Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Enable and verify negotiated IPv6-unicast capability and matching route-policy handling on the BGP peers. This treats the fault shown by Unionpoint Mobile: MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI. Confirm success when BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation. This addresses IPv6 static next-hop scope, but the reported symptoms arise from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI. For this case, verify instead that BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

C:

Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs. This addresses VSTP per-VLAN root choice, but the reported symptoms arise from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI. For this case, verify instead that BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

D:

The proposal changes IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI unresolved even if its own test passed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Question 445

During a wholesale access handoff at fictional Unionpoint Mobile, the team observes: A route reflector delivers customer prefixes successfully yet forwarding fails because downstream routers cannot resolve the advertised border 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. Fix internal next-hop reachability or use appropriate next-hop handling on the egress boundary, then confirm usable BGP forwarding.
  3. Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies.
  4. Correct the specific BGP import or export policy at the peer or group, matching approved prefix and path criteria.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Fix internal next-hop reachability or use appropriate next-hop handling on the egress boundary, then confirm usable BGP forwarding. This treats the fault shown by Unionpoint Mobile: A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation. Confirm success when the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior. This addresses generated route qualified next hop, but the reported symptoms arise from BGP next-hop reachability. For this case, verify instead that the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

C:

Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies. Its normal acceptance signal would be comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference. Here the deciding check is different: the received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

D:

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 received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

Question 446

A fictional service-provider team at Skybridge Metro is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: An OSPF adjacency keeps resetting despite clean physical counters, and the two ends advertise different hello intervals. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.
  2. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.
  3. The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.
  4. The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops. That establishes RSTP alternate port reconvergence rather than a repaired OSPF hello and dead timers path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

B:

The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. It would validate a separate OSPF external route export operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

D:

The check is meaningful for OSPF area LSA propagation, but it does not prove that OSPF hello and dead timers was repaired. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

Question 447

The operations group at fictional Elmbridge Networks, working on a redundant core router pair, finds: An engineered MPLS path must force a particular physical hop, but only node prefix SIDs are used and shortest-path routing chooses another link. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests.
  2. Continuously compare generated route eligibility and effective next hop against the approved regional reachability plan.
  3. Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes.
  4. Audit explicit segment lists against intended physical-hop constraints before deployment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Audit explicit segment lists against intended physical-hop constraints before deployment. This monitors the behavior that failed at Elmbridge Networks; the most useful acceptance signal is that packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects MPLS label stack bottom bit. It does not establish the ongoing segment routing adjacency SID behavior required in this network. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

B:

The control protects generated route qualified next hop. It does not establish the ongoing segment routing adjacency SID behavior required in this network. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

C:

Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes. That ongoing check is for LDP label binding completeness; 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.

Question 448

At fictional Coppercrest Cloud, during a backbone recovery drill, engineers report: Two connected PE routers exchange OSPF hello packets but do not become full neighbors because each interface belongs to a different area. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.
  2. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.
  3. OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency.
  4. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link.

Incorrect Answers

A:

OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF area identity mismatch problem reported by Coppercrest Cloud.

B:

OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. That describes OSPF external route export, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by OSPF area identity mismatch; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF area identity mismatch problem reported by Coppercrest Cloud.

Question 449

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Meadowrise Internet, the team observes: The network announces a generated summary while its selected qualifying route has a next hop unsuitable for the intended exit. 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. Align aggregate generation with present contributing routes and confirm the discard or reject behavior and intentional export policy.
  3. Configure and verify the intended VSTP instance and per-VLAN root priorities for the affected VLANs.
  4. Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Use a generated route with the intended contributor policy and verify the selected qualifying route supplies usable forwarding behavior. This treats the fault shown by Meadowrise Internet: generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries. Confirm success when the generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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

C:

The proposal changes VSTP per-VLAN root choice; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave generated route qualified next hop unresolved even if its own test passed. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.

D:

Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table. This addresses RIB group route sharing, but the reported symptoms arise from generated route qualified next hop. For this case, verify instead that the generated route becomes active when eligible contributors exist and forwards through the intended resolved contributing next hop.

Question 450

A fictional service-provider team at Brookstone Communications is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: A provider access fabric changes its MST revision on only one device and behaves like a boundary instead of a single region. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.
  2. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.
  3. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.
  4. GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align MST region name, revision, and VLAN-to-instance mapping across all intended region members. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A provider access fabric changes its MST revision on only one device and behaves like a boundary instead of a single region. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding. That describes RSTP alternate port reconvergence, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by MSTP region consistency; it does not predict the reported behavior. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A provider access fabric changes its MST revision on only one device and behaves like a boundary instead of a single region. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

C:

Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs. Those conditions do not account for the specific MSTP region consistency problem reported by Brookstone Communications.

D:

GRE provides encapsulation and protocol carriage but does not inherently supply confidentiality or cryptographic integrity. That describes GRE confidentiality limitation, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by MSTP region consistency; it does not predict the reported behavior.

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