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 50

Question 490

A fictional service-provider team at Seabright Networks is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: Two OSPF exits both converge but a high-capacity core path loses because the configured cumulative costs favor a slower path. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Compare OSPF area IDs at both ends of every new inter-router link before production cutover.
  2. Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests.
  3. Include end-to-end MTU alignment and OSPF database exchange checks in circuit acceptance tests.
  4. Test BFD session negotiation and routing reaction times during controlled failures.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests. This monitors the behavior that failed at Seabright Networks; the most useful acceptance signal is that the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Compare OSPF area IDs at both ends of every new inter-router link before production cutover. The monitored boundary differs from OSPF interface metric selection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPF chooses lowest-cost paths computed from link-state topology; a Full adjacency alone does not guarantee the desired route preference.

C:

This is a useful guard against OSPF MTU negotiation, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF interface metric selection failure. An appropriate test would show that the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

D:

Test BFD session negotiation and routing reaction times during controlled failures. That ongoing check is for BFD fast failure detection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of OSPF interface metric selection. OSPF chooses lowest-cost paths computed from link-state topology; a Full adjacency alone does not guarantee the desired route preference.

Question 491

The operations group at fictional Maplewood Exchange, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: A wholesale carrier accepts ordinary-sized frames but fails jumbo-frame handoff when encapsulation overhead increases the on-wire size. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Keep GRES for forwarding continuity and enable the appropriate supported NSB for bridging or NSR or graceful restart for routing sessions as required.
  2. Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic.
  3. Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits.
  4. Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits. This treats the fault shown by Maplewood Exchange: provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged. Confirm success when tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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 provider bridging MTU overhead; provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

B:

Align the explicitly approved native and untagged VLAN behavior at both ends and verify tagged versus untagged traffic. That could help in a case involving native untagged VLAN drift. This failure instead depends on provider bridging MTU overhead; provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

D:

Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing. Its normal acceptance signal would be hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly. Here the deciding check is different: tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

Question 492

At fictional Oakline Utilities, during a redundant core router pair, engineers report: A host connected to an access interface receives tagged frames that it cannot process because the port was made a trunk. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Captured service frames show the expected outer provider tag and unchanged customer tag, with distinct customers isolated.
  2. Untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.
  3. Hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.
  4. Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A host connected to an access interface receives tagged frames that it cannot process because the port was made a trunk. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Captured service frames show the expected outer provider tag and unchanged customer tag, with distinct customers isolated. That establishes provider Q-in-Q tagging rather than a repaired VLAN access trunk distinction path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

B:

Untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated. That establishes native untagged VLAN drift rather than a repaired VLAN access trunk distinction path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

D:

Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding. That establishes MPLS label forwarding table mismatch rather than a repaired VLAN access trunk distinction path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.

Question 493

During a regional backbone upgrade at fictional Kingfisher Wholesale, the team observes: A Level 1 edge can reach local area prefixes but not remote areas because the design lacks an appropriate Level 2 exit. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.
  2. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.
  3. Maximum expected encapsulated packets cross the tunnel without fragmentation blackholes or oversized drop counters.
  4. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. 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. 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 observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for IS-IS route redistribution policy, but it does not prove that IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability was repaired. 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. 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 observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

B:

The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged. That establishes IS-IS adjacency circuit level rather than a repaired IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.

C:

The check is meaningful for GRE tunnel path MTU, but it does not prove that IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability was repaired. 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 494

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

  1. The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.
  2. External route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.
  3. Comparably eligible paths carry intended MEDs and route selection in the agreed test case follows the planned preference.
  4. The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

External route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two external AS exits advertise the same prefix; inbound traffic favors the congested link because AS-path preparation was not applied as planned. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel. That establishes GRE recursive route avoidance rather than a repaired AS-path prepend inbound influence path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: external route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.

C:

The check is meaningful for BGP MED neighbor consideration, but it does not prove that AS-path prepend inbound influence was repaired. AS-path prepending can make a path less attractive to other ASes but does not override their local policies or guarantee inbound steering.

D:

The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct. That establishes EBGP multihop reachability rather than a repaired AS-path prepend inbound influence path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: external route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.

Question 495

The operations group at fictional Beacon Data Exchange, working on a redundant core router pair, finds: After a route change, the router sends outer tunnel packets toward the virtual tunnel interface rather than the physical underlay. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Restore underlay IP reachability between GRE tunnel endpoints and validate encapsulated probe traffic.
  2. Install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel.
  3. Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check.
  4. Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel. This treats the fault shown by Beacon Data Exchange: A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path. Confirm success when the outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes GRE endpoint underlay routing; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave GRE recursive route avoidance unresolved even if its own test passed. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After a route change, the router sends outer tunnel packets toward the virtual tunnel interface rather than the physical underlay. The question asks which focused engineering action would best correct the fault.

C:

Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check. Its normal acceptance signal would be the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information. Here the deciding check is different: the outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.

D:

The proposal changes GRE confidentiality limitation; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave GRE recursive route avoidance unresolved even if its own test passed. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

Question 496

At fictional Alderbrook Transit, during a metro aggregation ring, engineers report: An IS-IS L1/L2 backbone is stable for IPv4 but does not advertise IPv6 reachability TLVs after an address-family migration. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Check IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacencies and learned prefixes separately from IPv4 OSPFv2 health.
  2. Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks.
  3. Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes.
  4. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Track IPv4 and IPv6 IS-IS reachability separately in dual-stack health checks. This monitors the behavior that failed at Alderbrook Transit; 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:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An IS-IS L1/L2 backbone is stable for IPv4 but does not advertise IPv6 reachability TLVs after an address-family migration. The question asks which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring.

C:

Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes. 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.

D:

Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment. 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 497

During an intercity fiber refresh at fictional Seabright Networks, the team observes: A virtual-switch deployment keeps interfaces forwarding through GRES but loses bridge-state continuity because nonstop bridging was not planned. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.
  2. Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.
  3. During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.
  4. Both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. 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.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The check is meaningful for LACP aggregation consistency, but it does not prove that GRES preserves forwarding not protocols was repaired. 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.

C:

During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly. That establishes graceful restart peer assistance rather than a repaired GRES preserves forwarding not protocols path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.

D:

The check is meaningful for IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay, but it does not prove that GRES preserves forwarding not protocols was repaired. 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.

Question 498

A fictional service-provider team at Highpoint Exchange is reviewing a regional backbone upgrade. The finding is: A provider ring replacement uses area zero on one endpoint and a nonbackbone area on the other, leaving the pair absent from the neighbor table. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Q-in-Q carries an additional provider VLAN tag around customer-tagged traffic to isolate services with overlapping customer VLAN numbers.
  2. OSPF area identity is part of neighbor compatibility, and mismatched area membership prevents formation of the intended adjacency.
  3. OSPF uses the router ID to identify LSA originators; duplicate or unstable IDs undermine link-state identity.
  4. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A provider ring replacement uses area zero on one endpoint and a nonbackbone area on the other, leaving the pair absent from the neighbor table. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Q-in-Q carries an additional provider VLAN tag around customer-tagged traffic to isolate services with overlapping customer VLAN numbers. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF area identity mismatch problem reported by Highpoint Exchange.

C:

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 Highpoint Exchange.

D:

OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch. That describes OSPF hello and dead timers, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by OSPF area identity mismatch; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 499

The operations group at fictional Silverstone Wireless, working on a backbone recovery drill, finds: An IS-IS adjacency looks healthy but a router still holds older link-state information and computes a route through a removed link. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination.
  2. Inspect the IS-IS link-state database and CSNP/PSNP exchange to resolve synchronization or flooding problems.
  3. Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements.
  4. Apply and verify the appropriate BGP community marking and matching terms on approved routes at the correct policy boundary.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Inspect the IS-IS link-state database and CSNP/PSNP exchange to resolve synchronization or flooding problems. This treats the fault shown by Silverstone Wireless: IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity. Confirm success when the two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Ensure a healthy Level 1–Level 2 boundary and appropriate reachable exit or leaked route for the remote destination. This addresses IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but the reported symptoms arise from IS-IS LSP database synchronization. For this case, verify instead that the two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.

C:

Build a narrowly scoped IS-IS export policy that matches approved active prefixes and verify received advertisements. That could help in a case involving IS-IS route redistribution policy. This failure instead depends on IS-IS LSP database synchronization; IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

D:

The proposal changes BGP communities and routing policy; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS LSP database synchronization unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS LSP sequencing and sequence-number PDUs keep link-state databases synchronized; adjacency status alone does not ensure database parity.

Question 500

At fictional Skybridge Metro, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: Two switches intended to share one MSTP region show divergent spanning-tree instances because their VLAN-to-instance maps differ. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. An unexpected BPDU causes the intended protective state and operations receive a traceable port event.
  2. The alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.
  3. Adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances.
  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

C:

Adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two switches intended to share one MSTP region show divergent spanning-tree instances because their VLAN-to-instance maps differ. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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 adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances.

B:

The check is meaningful for RSTP alternate port reconvergence, but it does not prove that MSTP region consistency was repaired. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.

D:

The check is meaningful for routing instance separation, but it does not prove that MSTP region consistency was repaired. MSTP region identity depends on consistent name, revision, and VLAN mapping; mismatches create region boundaries.

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