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 5

Question 40

At fictional Elmbridge Networks, during a metro aggregation ring, engineers report: After peering migration, many internal routers choose a high-latency exit because its BGP LOCAL_PREF is higher than the preferred edge. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary.
  2. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.
  3. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.
  4. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

C:

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

D:

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

Question 41

During a provider-edge service migration at fictional Everfield Rail, the team observes: A replacement edge router sends an OPEN claiming the wrong AS and the upstream session never reaches Established. 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. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.
  3. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.
  4. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting BGP MED neighbor consideration, 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:

Although EBGP multihop reachability needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. BGP peers validate AS identity during OPEN negotiation; transport reachability by itself does not establish a valid BGP session.

Question 42

A fictional service-provider team at Fairway Telecom is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: A second routing table must resolve a shared loopback prefix, but the connected route is present only in the primary table. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF chooses lowest-cost paths computed from link-state topology; a Full adjacency alone does not guarantee the desired route preference.
  2. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.
  3. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.
  4. A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

OSPF chooses lowest-cost paths computed from link-state topology; a Full adjacency alone does not guarantee the desired route preference. Those conditions do not account for the specific RIB group route sharing problem reported by Fairway Telecom.

B:

Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. Those conditions do not account for the specific RIB group route sharing problem reported by Fairway Telecom.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting martian source address rejection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for RIB group route sharing. The relevant distinction is: A RIB group can install selected routes into additional routing tables; it does not merge isolated forwarding domains indiscriminately.

Question 43

The operations group at fictional Northshore Digital, working on a multi-tenant service turn-up, finds: An iBGP route is received with valid attributes but is inactive because its next hop is not resolvable in the routing table. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.
  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. BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to fix internal next-hop reachability or use appropriate next-hop handling on the egress boundary, then confirm usable BGP forwarding.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Although NSR protocol state replication needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. A BGP path is not usable merely because UPDATE is received; next-hop resolution is required for route selection and installation.

C:

LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS. Those conditions do not account for the specific BGP next-hop reachability problem reported by Northshore Digital.

D:

BGP import policy governs received routes and export policy governs outbound advertisements; changing the wrong direction cannot enforce the intended boundary. That describes BGP import export control, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by BGP next-hop reachability; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 44

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Enable the supported BPDU protection behavior on designated edge ports so unexpected BPDUs trigger a controlled protective response.
  2. Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link.
  3. Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check.
  4. Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Configure the same intended OSPF area and compatible interface parameters on both ends of the link. This treats the fault shown by Coppercrest Cloud: OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency. Confirm success when the pair establishes the expected OSPF adjacency with matching area assignment and reachable learned prefixes.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Enable the supported BPDU protection behavior on designated edge ports so unexpected BPDUs trigger a controlled protective response. Its normal acceptance signal would be an unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event. Here the deciding check is different: the pair establishes the expected OSPF adjacency with matching area assignment and reachable learned prefixes.

C:

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 OSPF area identity mismatch; OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency.

D:

Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. This addresses OSPF point-to-point topology, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF area identity mismatch. For this case, verify instead that the pair establishes the expected OSPF adjacency with matching area assignment and reachable learned prefixes.

Question 45

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 ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port.
  2. Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks.
  3. Compare instance membership, VLAN mappings, and MAC tables for cross-tenant isolation at each deployment.
  4. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks. This monitors the behavior that failed at Meridian Cloud; the most useful acceptance signal is that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment. It does not establish the ongoing native untagged VLAN drift behavior required in this network. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

C:

This is a useful guard against virtual-switch instance isolation, but it is not scoped to the observed native untagged VLAN drift failure. An appropriate test would show that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

D:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs, but it is not scoped to the observed native untagged VLAN drift failure. An appropriate test would show that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Question 46

A fictional service-provider team at Foxglove Broadband is reviewing a provider-edge service migration. The finding is: Two trunk endpoints disagree on where untagged control traffic belongs, placing frames in the wrong customer VLAN. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Capture DIS election and pseudonode observations during shared LAN commissioning and role changes.
  2. Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks.
  3. Validate tag behavior, allowed VLAN membership, and connected device expectations at port provisioning.
  4. Include tagged maximum-frame-size tests and hardware interface MTU limits in service acceptance.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Include tagged and untagged frame tests in trunk turn-up and template drift checks. This monitors the behavior that failed at Foxglove Broadband; the most useful acceptance signal is that untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The control protects IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system. It does not establish the ongoing native untagged VLAN drift behavior required in this network. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

C:

Validate tag behavior, allowed VLAN membership, and connected device expectations at port provisioning. The monitored boundary differs from native untagged VLAN drift, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. A native VLAN determines how untagged frames are classified on a trunk; inconsistent native mappings can silently bridge the wrong domain.

D:

Include tagged maximum-frame-size tests and hardware interface MTU limits in service acceptance. That ongoing check is for provider bridging MTU overhead; it would not reliably detect recurrence of 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 47

The operations group at fictional Summit Gate Network, working on a redundant core router pair, finds: A label stack includes a transport and service label, yet diagnostic tooling interprets the top label as bottom-of-stack and misroutes analysis. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path.
  2. Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies.
  3. Enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state.
  4. Inspect RSVP PATH and RESV state hop by hop and correct the interface or reservation block preventing completion.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Verify full label stack ordering and bottom-of-stack indication on the encapsulated service path. This treats the fault shown by Summit Gate Network: the MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference. Confirm success when traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Set and test a coherent MED policy between comparable paths, acknowledging peer AS comparison behavior and upstream policies. That could help in a case involving BGP MED neighbor consideration. This failure instead depends on MPLS label stack bottom bit; the MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

C:

Enable appropriate LDP interface discovery and verify discovery hellos and eventual neighbor session state. This addresses LDP neighbor discovery, but the reported symptoms arise from MPLS label stack bottom bit. For this case, verify instead that traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.

D:

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 MPLS label stack bottom bit; the MPLS S bit identifies the final label in a stack; it does not describe label priority or path preference.

Question 48

At fictional Hawthorne Metro, during a wholesale access handoff, engineers report: A new path uses large traffic-engineering-like costs, but inconsistent IS-IS metric style creates unpredictable reachability across routers. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate NET area and system-ID uniqueness automatically before onboarding each IS-IS router.
  2. Audit OSPF export filters against an approved prefix list after every service addition.
  3. Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion.
  4. Review IS-IS export policies against owner-approved prefix and origin criteria after service changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Validate supported metric style, actual LSP metric values, and computed paths during topology expansion. This monitors the behavior that failed at Hawthorne Metro; the most useful acceptance signal is that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Validate NET area and system-ID uniqueness automatically before onboarding each IS-IS router. That ongoing check is for IS-IS NET and system ID; it would not reliably detect recurrence of IS-IS wide metrics. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

B:

Audit OSPF export filters against an approved prefix list after every service addition. That ongoing check is for OSPF external route export; it would not reliably detect recurrence of IS-IS wide metrics. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

D:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS route redistribution policy, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS wide metrics failure. An appropriate test would show that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Question 49

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Everfield Rail, the team observes: A router running IS-IS discovers adjacent nodes but the IPv6 unicast routes never populate the IPv6 routing table. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes.
  2. Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes.
  3. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.
  4. Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks. This monitors the behavior that failed at Everfield Rail; the most useful acceptance signal is that IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against routing instance separation, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs failure. An appropriate test would show that IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.

B:

This is a useful guard against multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, but it is not scoped to the observed IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs failure. An appropriate test would show that IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability.

D:

Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health. The monitored boundary differs from IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute.

Question 50

A fictional service-provider team at Fabletree Media is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: Two external AS exits advertise the same prefix; inbound traffic favors the congested link because AS-path preparation was not applied as planned. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BGP communities provide policy metadata for grouping routes; they have no forwarding effect unless a matching policy interprets them.
  2. Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception.
  3. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.
  4. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting BGP communities and routing policy, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for AS-path prepend inbound influence. The relevant distinction is: AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IBGP route reflection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for AS-path prepend inbound influence. The relevant distinction is: AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

C:

Although provider bridging MTU overhead needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

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