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 47

Question 460

At fictional Fairway Telecom, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: An upstream carrier should tag a customer route with a cleanup community, but the community match is absent from export policy. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.
  2. External route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.
  3. Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.
  4. The received BGP route has a resolvable next hop, becomes eligible, and installs usable forwarding state.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An upstream carrier should tag a customer route with a cleanup community, but the community match is absent from export policy. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops. It would validate a separate OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.

B:

The check is meaningful for AS-path prepend inbound influence, but it does not prove that BGP communities and routing policy was repaired. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

D:

This measurement tests BGP next-hop reachability; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed BGP communities and routing policy condition. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.

Question 461

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Pinecrest Hosting, the team observes: A newly imported static route should be exported into IS-IS for a limited scope, but a broad policy accidentally advertises other routes. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.
  2. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.
  3. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.
  4. 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.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A newly imported static route should be exported into IS-IS for a limited scope, but a broad policy accidentally advertises other routes. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting native untagged VLAN drift, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS route redistribution policy. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS adjacency circuit level, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS route redistribution policy. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for IS-IS route redistribution policy. The relevant distinction is: IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

Question 462

A fictional service-provider team at Cypress Fiber is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: A redundant Routing Engine pair has GRES enabled, yet BGP peers reset on switchover because routing protocol state is not synchronized. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.
  2. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route.
  3. 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.
  4. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable supported NSR with required GRES on the platform, then verify routing protocol state replication and switchover behavior. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A redundant Routing Engine pair has GRES enabled, yet BGP peers reset on switchover because routing protocol state is not synchronized. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting EBGP multihop reachability, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for NSR protocol state replication. The relevant distinction is: NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

B:

BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route. Those conditions do not account for the specific NSR protocol state replication problem reported by Cypress Fiber.

C:

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. That describes GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by NSR protocol state replication; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 463

The operations group at fictional Northbay Telecom, working on a backbone recovery drill, finds: A customer VRF cannot reach an address in a second VRF even though both routing instances have healthy independent next hops. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed.
  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. The affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A customer VRF cannot reach an address in a second VRF even though both routing instances have healthy independent next hops. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Advertised routes carry the intended community and the relevant neighbor policy matches those routes as designed. It would validate a separate BGP communities and routing policy operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

B:

The check is meaningful for generated route qualified next hop, but it does not prove that routing instance separation was repaired. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.

C:

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 routing instance separation path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

Question 464

At fictional Orchard City Transit, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: After introducing a new service loopback, OSPF peers remain Full yet the loopback never appears as an external route because export is not configured. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link.
  2. Review interface network type and DR priorities, then plan election behavior with the existing DR and BDR state in mind.
  3. Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes.
  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

D:

Apply a scoped OSPF export policy to originate only the approved active source prefix and confirm the receiving routers learn it. This treats the fault shown by Orchard City Transit: OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. Confirm success when the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link. This addresses OSPF area identity mismatch, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF external route export. For this case, verify instead that the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

B:

The proposal changes OSPF designated router election; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF external route export unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

C:

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 OSPF external route export; OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

Question 465

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Meadowrise Internet, the team observes: After a security change, IPv6 forwarding collapses while IPv4 ARP still works because Neighbor Solicitation traffic is filtered. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions.
  2. Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes.
  3. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.
  4. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies. This monitors the behavior that failed at Meadowrise Internet; 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:

Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions. 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.

B:

This is a useful guard against multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, but it is not scoped to the observed IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering failure. An appropriate test would show that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

D:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs, but it is not scoped to the observed IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering failure. An appropriate test would show that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

Question 466

A fictional service-provider team at Sprucewell Transit is reviewing a metro aggregation ring. The finding is: A customer-facing edge port accidentally connects to another switch that begins sending BPDUs and threatens the access topology. 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. Monitor root-bridge identity and test controlled superior-BPDU attempts at trust boundaries.
  3. Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU.
  4. Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Audit which ports are true edges and test protective action when a simulated switch sends a BPDU. This monitors the behavior that failed at Sprucewell Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that an unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against BGP communities and routing policy, but it is not scoped to the observed RSTP edge BPDU protection failure. An appropriate test would show that an unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.

B:

Monitor root-bridge identity and test controlled superior-BPDU attempts at trust boundaries. That ongoing check is for RSTP root protection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of RSTP edge BPDU protection. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

D:

Test one-way BPDU loss and confirm correct port role and loop-protection state during maintenance. The monitored boundary differs from RSTP edge BPDU protection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.

Question 467

The operations group at fictional Fernstone Logistics, working on a dual-stack transit pilot, finds: Two adjacent IPv6 devices have valid unicast addresses, but ping fails because an ACL blocks required ICMPv6 neighbor discovery messages. 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. The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.
  3. Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.
  4. The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two adjacent IPv6 devices have valid unicast addresses, but ping fails because an ACL blocks required ICMPv6 neighbor discovery messages. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops. It would validate a separate multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

B:

The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops. It would validate a separate OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.

D:

This measurement tests segment routing prefix SID; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering condition. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

Question 468

At fictional Elmbridge Networks, during a wholesale access handoff, engineers report: The IPv6 overlay route exists, yet encapsulated packets drop because the IPv4 underlay has no valid path to the tunnel destination. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.
  2. Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.
  3. Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable.
  4. The shared connected route exists in both intended RIBs without broadly importing unrelated customer prefixes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. An IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity. Applied here, the relevant facts are: The IPv6 overlay route exists, yet encapsulated packets drop because the IPv4 underlay has no valid path to the tunnel destination. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay condition. An IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity.

C:

Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement complete and the destination's link-layer neighbor entry becomes usable. That establishes IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering rather than a repaired IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

D:

The check is meaningful for RIB group route sharing, but it does not prove that IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay was repaired. An IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity.

Question 469

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

  1. The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.
  2. The MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.
  3. Untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.
  4. An unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain. Applied here, the relevant facts are: 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. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, but it does not prove that native untagged VLAN drift was repaired. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

B:

This measurement tests MAC address learning and moves; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed native untagged VLAN drift condition. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

D:

An unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event. It would validate a separate RSTP edge BPDU protection operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Question 470

A fictional service-provider team at Cypress Fiber is reviewing a network change window. The finding is: After a traffic surge, a new RSVP LSP takes an unexpected detour because the candidate link lacks unreserved bandwidth. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Inspect RSVP PATH and RESV state hop by hop and correct the interface or reservation block preventing completion.
  2. Adjust the RSVP-TE bandwidth request or planned constraint-capable path and validate reservation availability.
  3. Check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path.
  4. Correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Adjust the RSVP-TE bandwidth request or planned constraint-capable path and validate reservation availability. This treats the fault shown by Cypress Fiber: RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing. Confirm success when the intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect RSVP PATH and RESV state hop by hop and correct the interface or reservation block preventing completion. That could help in a case involving RSVP PATH and RESV signaling. This failure instead depends on RSVP path bandwidth admission; RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

C:

Check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path. That could help in a case involving LDP label binding completeness. This failure instead depends on RSVP path bandwidth admission; RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.

D:

Correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange. Its normal acceptance signal would be the peer moves to Established with the agreed local and remote AS values and appropriate session messages. Here the deciding check is different: the intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.

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