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 57

Question 560

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check.
  2. Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits.
  3. Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area.
  4. Restore compatible hello and dead intervals on the neighboring OSPF interfaces and observe stable hellos.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Restore compatible hello and dead intervals on the neighboring OSPF interfaces and observe stable hellos. This treats the fault shown by Brookstone Communications: OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch. Confirm success when the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes OSPF MTU negotiation; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF hello and dead timers unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF neighbor formation requires compatible hello and dead timers; link-layer carrier does not override timer mismatch.

B:

Set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits. This addresses provider bridging MTU overhead, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF hello and dead timers. For this case, verify instead that the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

C:

Verify ABR inter-area advertisement policy and the presence of the appropriate summary reachability in the receiving area. This addresses OSPF area LSA propagation, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF hello and dead timers. For this case, verify instead that the adjacency remains Full over successive dead intervals without periodic neighbor expiration.

Question 561

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Cedarline Broadband, the team observes: A staff workstation port receives rogue spanning-tree control messages but remains forwarding because edge protection is missing. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection.
  2. Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs.
  3. Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear.
  4. IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Edge BPDU protection is intended for ports expected to connect to hosts, not for ordinary switch-to-switch links that exchange BPDUs. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable the supported BPDU protection behavior on designated edge ports so unexpected BPDUs trigger a controlled protective response. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A staff workstation port receives rogue spanning-tree control messages but remains forwarding because edge protection is missing. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Root protection blocks acceptance of an unexpected superior root across designated boundary ports; it is not the same as BPDU edge protection. Those conditions do not account for the specific RSTP edge BPDU protection problem reported by Cedarline Broadband.

C:

Loop protection protects non-designated ports against false transition to forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear. That describes RSTP loop protection, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSTP edge BPDU protection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing. That describes integrated routing and bridging, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSTP edge BPDU protection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 562

A fictional service-provider team at Coppercrest Cloud is reviewing a backbone recovery drill. The finding is: An operator thinks absence of the transport label at egress proves MPLS failed even though the prior LSR performed penultimate-hop popping. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Continuously compare generated route eligibility and effective next hop against the approved regional reachability plan.
  2. Capture representative stacked-label packets and verify transport-versus-service label parsing in acceptance tests.
  3. Confirm implicit-null advertisements and expected transport-label popping during LSP validation.
  4. Inspect label forwarding entries at ingress, transit, and egress after every LSP change.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Confirm implicit-null advertisements and expected transport-label popping during LSP validation. This monitors the behavior that failed at Coppercrest Cloud; the most useful acceptance signal is that the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This is a useful guard against generated route qualified next hop, but it is not scoped to the observed penultimate hop popping failure. An appropriate test would show that the penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.

B:

The control protects MPLS label stack bottom bit. It does not establish the ongoing penultimate hop popping behavior required in this network. Penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing.

D:

Inspect label forwarding entries at ingress, transit, and egress after every LSP change. The monitored boundary differs from penultimate hop popping, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Penultimate-hop popping can remove an outer transport label before the egress, reducing egress label processing.

Question 563

The operations group at fictional Willowrise Transport, working on a carrier peering cutover, finds: Two equal-cost upstream paths appear in the routing table, yet traffic statistics show packets use only one forwarding next hop. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.
  2. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.
  3. Generated routes can derive their next-hop behavior from qualifying contributing routes, unlike aggregate discard summaries.
  4. Ethernet bridges learn destination forwarding from observed source MAC addresses; unstable topology can continually invalidate learned ports.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to validate eligible equal-cost next hops and the configured forwarding-table export load-balancing behavior, measuring distribution across multiple flows.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This principle matters when troubleshooting static route next-hop resolution, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for equal-cost forwarding flow hashing. The relevant distinction is: equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

C:

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 equal-cost forwarding flow hashing; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

This principle matters when troubleshooting MAC address learning and moves, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for equal-cost forwarding flow hashing. The relevant distinction is: equal routing candidates do not prove the forwarding engine is using ECMP; Junos load-balancing policy and flow hashing determine installed next hops.

Question 564

At fictional Sprucewell Transit, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: After a core migration, a node SID is missing from the IGP advertisement and ingress nodes cannot build the intended SR-MPLS path. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The forwarding table has a valid outgoing label for the selected next hop and labeled traffic reaches the intended prefix.
  2. The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.
  3. The prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.
  4. External route advertisements show the intended relative AS-path lengths and measured inbound behavior is compared with the goal.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

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. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After a core migration, a node SID is missing from the IGP advertisement and ingress nodes cannot build the intended SR-MPLS path. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The check is meaningful for LDP label binding completeness, 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.

B:

The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session. That establishes LDP neighbor discovery rather than a repaired segment routing prefix SID path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the prefix SID is advertised and all ingress routers compute consistent transport label behavior for the node destination.

D:

This measurement tests AS-path prepend inbound influence; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed segment routing prefix SID condition. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Question 565

During a multi-tenant service turn-up at fictional Coastline Carrier, the team observes: A core node cannot represent a planned high link metric because the deployment still assumes narrow metrics. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The expected L1 or L2 IS-IS adjacency appears and routing information for the selected level is exchanged.
  2. Untagged frames map to the intended VLAN on both devices while explicitly tagged VLAN traffic remains isolated.
  3. The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability.
  4. All participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

All participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A core node cannot represent a planned high link metric because the deployment still assumes narrow metrics. 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 adjacency circuit level, but it does not prove that IS-IS wide metrics was repaired. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

B:

This measurement tests native untagged VLAN drift; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed IS-IS wide metrics condition. IS-IS metric encoding must support the configured value range; mixed or incompatible styles can alter SPF interpretation.

C:

The two peers converge to consistent current LSP sequence information and compute the same intended topology reachability. It would validate a separate IS-IS LSP database synchronization operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that all participating nodes interpret intended link metrics consistently and select the expected least-cost paths.

Question 566

A fictional service-provider team at Juniper Glen Telecom is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: OSPF peers reach ExStart or Exchange but never progress to Full after one side changes its interface MTU. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication.
  2. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.
  3. IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing.
  4. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

OSPF database description negotiation can reject incompatible interface MTUs even after hello packets establish initial communication. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to resolve the underlying link MTU mismatch and validate successful database description exchange rather than masking the check. Applied here, the relevant facts are: OSPF peers reach ExStart or Exchange but never progress to Full after one side changes its interface MTU. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

B:

OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF MTU negotiation problem reported by Juniper Glen Telecom.

C:

IRB provides an L3 interface for a Layer 2 VLAN bridge domain; MAC learning alone cannot perform inter-subnet routing. That describes integrated routing and bridging, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by OSPF MTU negotiation; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network. Those conditions do not account for the specific OSPF MTU negotiation problem reported by Juniper Glen Telecom.

Question 567

The operations group at fictional Lighthouse Education, working on a provider-edge service migration, finds: After enabling MPLS forwarding on a new link, Junos does not discover an LDP neighbor because LDP discovery is not enabled on that interface. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The intended LSP is admitted on a path satisfying its bandwidth constraints without oversubscribing reserved resources.
  2. The penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state.
  3. The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election.
  4. The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP. Applied here, the relevant facts are: After enabling MPLS forwarding on a new link, Junos does not discover an LDP neighbor because LDP discovery is not enabled on that interface. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This measurement tests RSVP path bandwidth admission; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed LDP neighbor discovery condition. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

B:

The penultimate LSR removes the expected transport label and the egress receives traffic in the planned label state. That establishes penultimate hop popping rather than a repaired LDP neighbor discovery path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

C:

The shared LAN shows the intended DIS and pseudonode information, and adjacency remains stable through a controlled election. It would validate a separate IS-IS LAN designated intermediate system operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the intended interface discovers the peer and the LDP neighbor appears with an operational session.

Question 568

At fictional Hawthorne Metro, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: A backbone LAN has too many full mesh adjacencies and the team mistakenly expects point-to-point behavior on a broadcast segment. Which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired?

  1. The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology.
  2. The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.
  3. The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.
  4. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF broadcast networks elect a DR and BDR; raising priority does not automatically preempt an already elected DR. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A backbone LAN has too many full mesh adjacencies and the team mistakenly expects point-to-point behavior on a broadcast segment. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The receiving area's LSDB and route table show intended inter-area reachability without copying the source area's full topology. It would validate a separate OSPF area LSA propagation operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

C:

The correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers. That establishes flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment rather than a repaired OSPF designated router election path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

D:

The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. It would validate a separate OSPF external route export operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.

Question 569

During a wholesale access handoff at fictional Lakecrest Utility, the team observes: A dual-RE router keeps forwarding through a GRES switchover but loses routing neighbors because protocol state was not preserved. 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. Apply and verify the appropriate BGP community marking and matching terms on approved routes at the correct policy boundary.
  3. Enable supported NSR with required GRES on the platform, then verify routing protocol state replication and switchover behavior.
  4. Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Keep GRES for forwarding continuity and enable the appropriate supported NSB for bridging or NSR or graceful restart for routing sessions as required. This treats the fault shown by Lakecrest Utility: 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. Confirm success when A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The proposal changes BGP communities and routing policy; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave GRES preserves forwarding not protocols unresolved even if its own test passed. 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:

Enable supported NSR with required GRES on the platform, then verify routing protocol state replication and switchover behavior. Its normal acceptance signal would be during a controlled primary RE loss, eligible routing adjacencies continue using state maintained by the backup RE. Here the deciding check is different: A controlled Routing Engine switchover retains forwarding and the planned bridge or routing state without unexpected protocol resets.

D:

Use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection. That could help in a case involving BFD fast failure detection. This failure instead depends on GRES preserves forwarding not protocols; 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 570

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

  1. The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event.
  2. The best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.
  3. Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer.
  4. The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails. It tests the failed behavior itself rather than merely confirming that a configuration was committed. OSPF chooses lowest-cost paths computed from link-state topology; a Full adjacency alone does not guarantee the desired route preference. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Two OSPF exits both converge but a high-capacity core path loses because the configured cumulative costs favor a slower path. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The broadcast segment has the planned DR and BDR and expected adjacency states after a controlled election event. It would validate a separate OSPF designated router election operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

C:

Packets to the remote outer endpoint resolve through an ordinary underlay route and GRE probes reach the peer. It would validate a separate GRE endpoint underlay routing operation, not the change needed here. Confirm instead that the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

D:

The approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed. That establishes OSPF external route export rather than a repaired OSPF interface metric selection path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the best route's cumulative OSPF cost selects the approved path and changes predictably when the alternative fails.

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