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 51

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.

Question 501

During an intercity fiber refresh at fictional Harborfield Datacenter, the team observes: An operator expects intra-area router LSAs to flood directly through an ABR into a different area rather than seeing summary information. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters.
  2. Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests.
  3. Rehearse planned root-link failures and verify alternate-port transitions and absence of loop symptoms.
  4. Audit OSPF export filters against an approved prefix list after every service addition.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters. This monitors the behavior that failed at Harborfield Datacenter; the most useful acceptance signal is that the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Track link cost and selected SPF path together in post-upgrade route-validation tests. The monitored boundary differs from OSPF area LSA propagation, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

C:

This is a useful guard against RSTP alternate port reconvergence, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF area LSA propagation failure. An appropriate test would show that the receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.

D:

The control protects OSPF external route export. It does not establish the ongoing OSPF area LSA propagation behavior required in this network. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

Question 502

A fictional service-provider team at Eastlake Services is reviewing a virtual-router integration. The finding is: A transit LSR receives labeled packets but the expected outgoing label swap is missing from the forwarding entries. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path.
  2. Packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.
  3. Traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label.
  4. The best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This measurement tests segment routing adjacency SID; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed MPLS label push swap pop condition. MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label.

C:

Traces show the transport label above the service label with bottom-of-stack marked only on the last label. That establishes MPLS label stack bottom bit rather than a repaired MPLS label push swap pop path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: packet traces or label forwarding entries show the planned push, swap, and pop sequence across the path.

D:

This measurement tests OSPF interface metric selection; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed MPLS label push swap pop condition. MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label.

Question 503

The operations group at fictional Elmbridge Networks, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: An invalid address block enters a lab RIB after a routing-policy change and operators mistake the route for genuine service reachability. 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. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.
  4. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to treat the reserved or martian prefix as invalid for production routing and correct the source instead of overriding safety rejection blindly.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although OSPF interface metric selection needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

B:

Although equal-cost forwarding flow hashing needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting filter-based forwarding table selection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for martian source address rejection. The relevant distinction is: martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.

Question 504

At fictional Summit Gate Network, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: A firewall filter matches inbound customer traffic, yet there is no forwarding-class-based table selection, so special traffic follows the global route. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Audit L1/L2 levels, attached-bit behavior, and approved route leaks after backbone changes.
  2. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.
  3. Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes.
  4. Exercise matched and unmatched test flows after changes and monitor the filter counters and selected forwarding table.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Exercise matched and unmatched test flows after changes and monitor the filter counters and selected forwarding table. This monitors the behavior that failed at Summit Gate Network; the most useful acceptance signal is that only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against IS-IS L1 and L2 reachability, but it is not scoped to the observed filter-based forwarding table selection failure. An appropriate test would show that only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.

B:

This is a useful guard against aggregate route contributor, but it is not scoped to the observed filter-based forwarding table selection failure. An appropriate test would show that only the selected traffic uses the inspection forwarding table while unmatched traffic follows the ordinary destination route.

C:

The control protects static route next-hop resolution. It does not establish the ongoing filter-based forwarding table selection behavior required in this network. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

Question 505

During a carrier peering cutover at fictional Meridian Cloud, the team observes: A provider edge can ping its IPv6 next hop but has no OSPFv3 adjacency because the intended interface is not enabled for the protocol. 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. The intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.
  3. The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.
  4. The impacted non-designated port stays protected while BPDUs are absent and returns only after control-plane health is restored.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

Incorrect Answers

A:

IPv6 reachability TLVs are exchanged and peers install the intended IPv6 routes independently of IPv4 reachability. It would validate a separate IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the expected OSPFv3 neighbor reaches Full and IPv6 routes appear with intended next hops.

B:

This measurement tests IPv6 static next-hop scope; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability condition. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

D:

This measurement tests RSTP loop protection; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability condition. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

Question 506

A fictional service-provider team at Elmbridge Networks is reviewing a metro aggregation ring. The finding is: After peering migration, many internal routers choose a high-latency exit because its BGP LOCAL_PREF is higher than the preferred edge. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.
  2. The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct.
  3. Authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection.
  4. Internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After peering migration, many internal routers choose a high-latency exit because its BGP LOCAL_PREF is higher than the preferred edge. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for LACP aggregation consistency, but it does not prove that BGP local preference was repaired. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

B:

The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct. It would validate a separate EBGP multihop reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

C:

Authorized clients receive the expected reflected iBGP paths and preserve appropriate originator or cluster-loop protection. It would validate a separate IBGP route reflection operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

Question 507

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 networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.
  2. GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path.
  3. GRE encapsulates packets between outer IP endpoints; the underlay must route the outer destination before inner traffic can succeed.
  4. MED is a BGP path hint with lower values generally preferred when compared; it is not a guarantee of inbound routing across arbitrary networks.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to install and verify independent underlay reachability for the GRE outer destination, preventing recursive use of the tunnel. 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 networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

GRE adds header bytes, reducing effective payload MTU across an unchanged underlay path. That describes GRE tunnel path MTU, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by GRE recursive route avoidance; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

Although GRE endpoint underlay routing needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting BGP MED neighbor consideration, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for GRE recursive route avoidance. The relevant distinction is: A tunnel's transport destination must not depend on routing through that same tunnel; recursion defeats the encapsulation path.

Question 508

At fictional Lakecrest Utility, during a wholesale access handoff, engineers report: A dual-RE router keeps forwarding through a GRES switchover but loses routing neighbors because protocol state was not preserved. 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. A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.
  3. During a controlled routing restart, participating neighbors retain forwarding state only for the permitted grace interval and then converge correctly.
  4. During a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A dual-RE router keeps forwarding through a GRES switchover but loses routing neighbors because protocol state was not preserved. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. It would validate a separate IS-IS route redistribution policy operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.

C:

The check is meaningful for graceful restart peer assistance, 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.

D:

During a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE. It would validate a separate NSR protocol state replication operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.

Question 509

During a dual-stack transit pilot at fictional Northbay Telecom, the team observes: A multi-service interface must accept mixed VLAN encapsulations, but the physical and logical unit tagging settings disagree. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints.
  2. Hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly.
  3. Captured service frames show the expected outer provider tag and unchanged customer tag, with distinct customers isolated.
  4. The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A multi-service interface must accept mixed VLAN encapsulations, but the physical and logical unit tagging settings disagree. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

An underlay capture cannot read protected payload content and transport still reaches the required tunnel endpoints. That establishes GRE confidentiality limitation rather than a repaired flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

B:

Hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly. It would validate a separate integrated routing and bridging operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

C:

The check is meaningful for provider Q-in-Q tagging, but it does not prove that flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment was repaired. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

Question 510

A fictional service-provider team at Elmbridge Networks is reviewing a wholesale access handoff. The finding is: The IPv6 overlay route exists, yet encapsulated packets drop because the IPv4 underlay has no valid path to the tunnel destination. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution.
  2. Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation.
  3. Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation.
  4. Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path. This treats the fault shown by Elmbridge Networks: an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity. Confirm success when both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution. This addresses IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, but the reported symptoms arise from IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay. For this case, verify instead that both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

B:

Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation. Its normal acceptance signal would be the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface. Here the deciding check is different: both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end.

C:

Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation. That could help in a case involving GRE confidentiality limitation. This failure instead depends on IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay; an IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel depends on the IPv4 underlay that transports encapsulated packets; overlay route presence cannot replace underlay connectivity.

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