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 54

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.

Question 531

The operations group at fictional Orchard City Transit, working on a virtual-router integration, finds: After introducing a new service loopback, OSPF peers remain Full yet the loopback never appears as an external route because export is not configured. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.
  2. The two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election.
  3. The outer GRE endpoint resolves to an underlay interface while only intended inner destinations use the tunnel.
  4. The two peers progress through database synchronization to Full and agree on reachable link-state information.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After introducing a new service loopback, OSPF peers remain Full yet the loopback never appears as an external route because export is not configured. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This measurement tests OSPF point-to-point topology; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPF external route export condition. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

C:

The check is meaningful for GRE recursive route avoidance, but it does not prove that OSPF external route export was repaired. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

D:

The check is meaningful for OSPF MTU negotiation, but it does not prove that OSPF external route export was repaired. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

Question 532

At fictional Stonewell Fiber, during a provider-edge service migration, engineers report: A routing process restarts but downstream peers immediately flush its prefixes, contrary to the operator's expectation of graceful preservation. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.
  2. IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements.
  3. Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.
  4. VRRP coordinates an active virtual default gateway among participating routers, unlike independent physical interface addresses.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to configure and verify compatible protocol graceful-restart capability and planned helper behavior between neighbors. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A routing process restarts but downstream peers immediately flush its prefixes, contrary to the operator's expectation of graceful preservation. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Although NSR protocol state replication needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.

B:

IS-IS uses TLVs inside its PDUs to encode prefix and protocol capabilities; adjacency alone is not proof of expected reachability advertisements. That describes IS-IS TLV reachability, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by graceful restart peer assistance; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting VRRP virtual gateway failover, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for graceful restart peer assistance. The relevant distinction is: graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.

Question 533

During a metro aggregation ring at fictional Alderbrook Transit, the team observes: A standby link is healthy, but the configured static route never becomes active because its specified next hop is unreachable in the selected table. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Exercise matched and unmatched test flows after changes and monitor the filter counters and selected forwarding table.
  2. Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes.
  3. Include reserved-prefix and martian-route validation in route import audits and configuration-change tests.
  4. Test double-tag preservation and S-tag membership on both ends of each provider handoff.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Alderbrook Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that the intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against filter-based forwarding table selection, but it is not scoped to the observed static route next-hop resolution failure. An appropriate test would show that the intended destination appears as an active route with a resolvable next hop in the routing table and forwarding table.

C:

Include reserved-prefix and martian-route validation in route import audits and configuration-change tests. That ongoing check is for martian source address rejection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of static route next-hop resolution. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.

D:

Test double-tag preservation and S-tag membership on both ends of each provider handoff. That ongoing check is for provider Q-in-Q tagging; it would not reliably detect recurrence of static route next-hop resolution. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.

Question 534

A fictional service-provider team at Jasper Data Works is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: A connected service prefix exists locally but never appears in IS-IS even though all adjacencies are healthy. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The Level 1 router has valid remote-area reachability through the intended L1–L2 boundary without learning the entire L2 topology.
  2. The intended multi-hop peer establishes while IP reachability and any required loopback-source configuration are correct.
  3. The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.
  4. Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A connected service prefix exists locally but never appears in IS-IS even though all adjacencies are healthy. 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 L1 and L2 reachability, but it does not prove that IS-IS route redistribution policy was repaired. IS-IS exports externally originated routes through routing policy; forming an adjacency does not redistribute every route automatically.

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 the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

D:

Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables. That establishes IS-IS TLV reachability rather than a repaired IS-IS route redistribution policy path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended service route is advertised while nonapproved connected and static prefixes remain outside the IS-IS domain.

Question 535

The operations group at fictional Meadowrise Internet, working on a virtual-router integration, finds: A segment-routing route is advertised but routers map its global prefix SID to inconsistent MPLS labels after different SRGB ranges are configured. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables.
  2. The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.
  3. Packet traces follow the specified adjacency rather than merely the IGP shortest path to a node SID.
  4. Incoming labels resolve to valid outgoing label operations and interfaces, and data-plane counters show successful forwarding.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Link-state PDUs include the intended reachability TLVs and the matching routes populate peer routing tables. It would validate a separate IS-IS TLV reachability operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.

C:

The check is meaningful for segment routing adjacency SID, but it does not prove that segment routing prefix SID was repaired. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

D:

The check is meaningful for MPLS label forwarding table mismatch, but it does not prove that segment routing prefix SID was repaired. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Question 536

At fictional Coppercrest Cloud, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: An alternate port stops receiving BPDUs during a one-way failure and risks incorrectly transitioning to forwarding. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.
  2. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.
  3. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.
  4. Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to use loop protection on appropriate nondesignated interfaces and verify the safe state during missing-BPDU events. Applied here, the relevant facts are: An alternate port stops receiving BPDUs during a one-way failure and risks incorrectly transitioning to forwarding. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding. Those conditions do not account for the specific RSTP loop protection problem reported by Coppercrest Cloud.

B:

OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. That describes OSPF external route export, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSTP loop protection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection. That describes RSTP root protection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSTP loop protection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 537

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

  1. Audit OSPF export filters against an approved prefix list after every service addition.
  2. Compare advertised OSPF timers during provisioning and alert on repeated neighbor-down events.
  3. Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates.
  4. Audit network type against actual link topology during edge circuit deployment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Compare advertised OSPF timers during provisioning and alert on repeated neighbor-down events. This monitors the behavior that failed at Brookstone Communications; the most useful acceptance signal is that the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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 OSPF hello and dead timers. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

C:

Verify community tagging and matching with advertised-route checks after policy updates. The monitored boundary differs from OSPF hello and dead timers, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

D:

This is a useful guard against OSPF point-to-point topology, but it is not scoped to the observed OSPF hello and dead timers failure. An appropriate test would show that the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

Question 538

A fictional service-provider team at Summit Gate Network is reviewing a dual-stack transit pilot. The finding is: A firewall filter matches inbound customer traffic, yet there is no forwarding-class-based table selection, so special traffic follows the global route. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.
  2. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.
  3. OSPF limits most intra-area LSAs to their areas while ABRs advertise inter-area route information using summary LSAs.
  4. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to apply a narrowly scoped ingress filter-based-forwarding match that selects the intended forwarding routing instance and validate lookup there. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A firewall filter matches inbound customer traffic, yet there is no forwarding-class-based table selection, so special traffic follows the global route. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Although routing instance separation needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

C:

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 filter-based forwarding table selection problem reported by Summit Gate Network.

D:

Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries. That describes generated route qualified next hop, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by filter-based forwarding table selection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 539

The operations group at fictional Lakecrest Utility, working on a metro aggregation ring, finds: A backbone engineer verifies only IP connectivity while RSVP LSP signaling fails on the reverse reservation leg. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress.
  2. Check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path.
  3. Inspect RSVP PATH and RESV state hop by hop and correct the interface or reservation block preventing completion.
  4. Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inspect RSVP PATH and RESV state hop by hop and correct the interface or reservation block preventing completion. This treats the fault shown by Lakecrest Utility: RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient. Confirm success when the LSP shows a completed RSVP reservation and an operational signaled path through intended hops.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Interpret the advertised implicit-null behavior and verify label disposition on the penultimate LSR and egress. That could help in a case involving penultimate hop popping. This failure instead depends on RSVP PATH and RESV signaling; RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

B:

Check downstream label advertisement, selected next hop, and label binding installation before activating the LSP path. That could help in a case involving LDP label binding completeness. This failure instead depends on RSVP PATH and RESV signaling; RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

D:

Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. That could help in a case involving OSPF point-to-point topology. This failure instead depends on RSVP PATH and RESV signaling; RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

Question 540

At fictional Unionpoint Mobile, during a redundant core router pair, engineers report: A service edge expects a summary to be visible, but the aggregate is inactive because no qualifying component route contributes to it. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Alert when the required static route becomes hidden or its next hop stops resolving, and validate reachability before committing changes.
  2. Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes.
  3. Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters.
  4. Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Test route contributor withdrawal in staging and compare active aggregates with constituent route inventory after changes. This monitors the behavior that failed at Unionpoint Mobile; the most useful acceptance signal is that the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against static route next-hop resolution, but it is not scoped to the observed aggregate route contributor failure. An appropriate test would show that the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed.

C:

Check inter-area prefix availability at each ABR after changes to area boundaries and route filters. That ongoing check is for OSPF area LSA propagation; it would not reliably detect recurrence of aggregate route contributor. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

D:

Check forwarding-table next-hop sets and multi-flow traffic after any export-policy or path-cost change. The monitored boundary differs from aggregate route contributor, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. An aggregate route is conditional on active contributing routes and normally uses a discard or reject next hop to avoid creating a forwarding loop.

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