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 53

Question 520

At fictional Brookstone Communications, during a metro aggregation ring, engineers report: A maintenance script changes only one router's dead timer on a point-to-point circuit, causing repeated loss of neighboring state. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.
  2. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.
  3. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  4. OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to restore compatible hello and dead intervals on the neighboring OSPF interfaces and observe stable hellos. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A maintenance script changes only one router's dead timer on a point-to-point circuit, causing repeated loss of neighboring state. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF hello and dead timers problem reported by Brookstone Communications.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting LDP label binding completeness, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for OSPF hello and dead timers. The relevant distinction is: OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

D:

OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication. That describes OSPF MTU negotiation, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by OSPF hello and dead timers; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 521

During a carrier peering cutover at fictional Unionpoint Mobile, the team observes: A wholesale access edge must carry an inner customer VLAN through the network but its outer service tag is inconsistent at handoff. 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. Hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership.
  3. Hosts reach the expected IRB gateway and traffic between approved subnets is routed rather than bridged blindly.
  4. The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Captured service frames show the expected outer provider tag and unchanged customer tag, with distinct customers isolated. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. Q-in-Q carries an additional provider VLAN tag around customer-tagged traffic to isolate services with overlapping customer VLAN numbers. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A wholesale access edge must carry an inner customer VLAN through the network but its outer service tag is inconsistent at handoff. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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

C:

The check is meaningful for integrated routing and bridging, but it does not prove that provider Q-in-Q tagging was repaired. Q-in-Q carries an additional provider VLAN tag around customer-tagged traffic to isolate services with overlapping customer VLAN numbers.

D:

The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources. It would validate a separate RSVP path bandwidth admission operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that captured service frames show the expected outer provider tag and unchanged customer tag, with distinct customers isolated.

Question 522

A fictional service-provider team at Tidewater Hosting is reviewing a provider-edge service migration. The finding is: After a provider port migration, stacked-tag frames drop because the logical units do not match the expected flexible VLAN tag form. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding.
  2. Q-in-Q carries an additional provider VLAN tag around customer-tagged traffic to isolate services with overlapping customer VLAN numbers.
  3. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.
  4. OSPFv3 provides OSPF routing for IPv6; successful IPv4 OSPFv2 peering does not establish an IPv6 adjacency.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to align the port's supported flexible VLAN tagging and per-unit encapsulation with the intended service frame format. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After a provider port migration, stacked-tag frames drop because the logical units do not match the expected flexible VLAN tag form. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Virtual-switch routing instances provide separate bridge contexts; similar VLAN identifiers alone do not imply shared L2 forwarding. That describes virtual-switch instance isolation, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

Although provider Q-in-Q tagging needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

D:

Although OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

Question 523

The operations group at fictional Ironwood Transit, working on a carrier peering cutover, finds: A service provider expects nonstop active routing from a backup RE, but only chassis switchover resilience was configured. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Exercise VRRP failover and confirm virtual gateway reachability under device and link failure.
  2. Test forwarding, bridge MAC state, and protocol-neighbor continuity separately during redundant Routing Engine failover drills.
  3. Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes.
  4. Verify backup RE protocol-state synchronization and rehearse switchover in an approved maintenance window.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Verify backup RE protocol-state synchronization and rehearse switchover in an approved maintenance window. This monitors the behavior that failed at Ironwood Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against VRRP virtual gateway failover, but it is not scoped to the observed NSR protocol state replication failure. An appropriate test would show that during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE.

B:

Test forwarding, bridge MAC state, and protocol-neighbor continuity separately during redundant Routing Engine failover drills. That ongoing check is for GRES preserves forwarding not protocols; it would not reliably detect recurrence of NSR protocol state replication. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

C:

Alert on missing LDP label mappings for required FECs after peer resets and topology changes. That ongoing check is for LDP label binding completeness; it would not reliably detect recurrence of NSR protocol state replication. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

Question 524

At fictional Unionpoint Mobile, during a redundant core router pair, engineers report: After enabling dual stack, an edge advertises a prefix under the wrong BGP address family and the neighbor never imports IPv6 reachability. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies.
  2. Capture DIS election and pseudonode observations during shared LAN commissioning and role changes.
  3. Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes.
  4. Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Audit BGP address-family negotiation and received IPv6 routes whenever dual-stack peering changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Unionpoint Mobile; the most useful acceptance signal is that BGP peers exchange the intended IPv6 NLRI and establish resolvable IPv6 next hops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Test ICMPv6 neighbor discovery after applying IPv6 filters or host-security policies. The monitored boundary differs from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

B:

Capture DIS election and pseudonode observations during shared LAN commissioning and role changes. The monitored boundary differs from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

D:

Validate next-hop address scope and outbound interface for static IPv6 routes during deployment. The monitored boundary differs from multiprotocol BGP IPv6 AFI, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. MP-BGP requires the appropriate address-family capability and route processing; an Established IPv4 BGP session alone does not carry IPv6 NLRI.

Question 525

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Brookstone Communications, the team observes: A maintenance script changes only one router's dead timer on a point-to-point circuit, causing repeated loss of neighboring state. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.
  2. The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.
  3. Every router has a distinct planned router ID and the LSDB tracks the appropriate originating router consistently.
  4. The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A maintenance script changes only one router's dead timer on a point-to-point circuit, causing repeated loss of neighboring state. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology. That establishes OSPF area LSA propagation rather than a repaired OSPF hello and dead timers path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

C:

This measurement tests stable OSPF router identifier; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPF hello and dead timers condition. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

D:

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

Question 526

A fictional service-provider team at Meridian Cloud is reviewing a backbone recovery drill. The finding is: An MPLS route exists in the IP RIB but no usable label mapping is received from the downstream peer. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.
  2. Ordinary iBGP does not readvertise iBGP-learned routes to another iBGP peer; route reflectors provide a controlled exception.
  3. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.
  4. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An MPLS route exists in the IP RIB but no usable label mapping is received from the downstream peer. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing. That describes RSVP path bandwidth admission, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by LDP label binding completeness; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting IBGP route reflection, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for LDP label binding completeness. The relevant distinction is: LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

D:

Although segment routing adjacency SID needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. LDP supplies label bindings for eligible FECs; IP reachability without a usable label binding does not prove labeled forwarding.

Question 527

The operations group at fictional Clearwater Transit, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: A remote area receives no inter-area prefix even though the ABR has a working backbone link and the destination exists in another area. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery.
  2. Maintain an authoritative router-ID inventory and block duplicate assignments in provisioning checks.
  3. Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters.
  4. Review IS-IS export policies against owner-approved prefix and origin criteria after service changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters. This monitors the behavior that failed at Clearwater Transit; 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

A:

The control protects OSPF designated router election. 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.

B:

Maintain an authoritative router-ID inventory and block duplicate assignments in provisioning checks. 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.

D:

Review IS-IS export policies against owner-approved prefix and origin criteria after service changes. That ongoing check is for IS-IS route redistribution policy; it would not reliably detect recurrence of OSPF area LSA propagation. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.

Question 528

At fictional Ridgefield Carrier, during a network change window, engineers report: Following a provider transport swap, OSPF hellos continue but database description exchange stalls where the advertised MTUs differ. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery.
  2. Compare OSPF area IDs at both ends of every new inter-router link before production cutover.
  3. Include end-to-end MTU alignment and OSPF database exchange checks in circuit acceptance tests.
  4. Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Include end-to-end MTU alignment and OSPF database exchange checks in circuit acceptance tests. This monitors the behavior that failed at Ridgefield Carrier; the most useful acceptance signal is that the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery. That ongoing check is for OSPF designated router election; it would not reliably detect recurrence of OSPF MTU negotiation. OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication.

B:

This is a useful guard against OSPF area identity mismatch, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF MTU negotiation failure. An appropriate test would show that the two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

D:

Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades. The monitored boundary differs from OSPF MTU negotiation, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication.

Question 529

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Coppercrest Cloud, the team observes: Neighboring IS-IS devices exchange physical frames but one interface is Level 1-only while the peer runs Level 2-only. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Inspect the supported and advertised IS-IS reachability TLVs and configure the correct address family on the relevant links.
  2. Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path.
  3. Align compatible wide-metric support across the IS-IS domain and validate advertised metrics and SPF path selection.
  4. Set compatible IS-IS circuit levels on both ends of the interface and verify hello and neighbor state.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Set compatible IS-IS circuit levels on both ends of the interface and verify hello and neighbor state. This treats the fault shown by Coppercrest Cloud: IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch. Confirm success when the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect the supported and advertised IS-IS reachability TLVs and configure the correct address family on the relevant links. This addresses IS-IS TLV reachability, but the reported symptoms arise from IS-IS adjacency circuit level. For this case, verify instead that the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

B:

The proposal changes IPv6 over IPv4 tunnel underlay; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave IS-IS adjacency circuit level unresolved even if its own test passed. IS-IS peers must support a common adjacency level; active Ethernet transport does not compensate for a level mismatch.

C:

Align compatible wide-metric support across the IS-IS domain and validate advertised metrics and SPF path selection. Its normal acceptance signal would be all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths. Here the deciding check is different: the expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.

Question 530

A fictional service-provider team at Winterfield Utilities is reviewing a multi-tenant service turn-up. The finding is: A leaked control-plane prefix uses a reserved destination range, but an edge engineer wants to make it active through higher preference. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route.
  2. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.
  3. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.
  4. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A leaked control-plane prefix uses a reserved destination range, but an edge engineer wants to make it active through higher preference. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This principle matters when troubleshooting BFD fast failure detection, 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.

C:

Although generated route qualified next hop 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.

D:

Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. That describes equal-cost forwarding flow hashing, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by martian source address rejection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

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