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 7

Question 60

At fictional Moorland Carriers, during a virtual-router integration, engineers report: A subset of source traffic should traverse a security inspection RIB, but the global destination route sends it through the ordinary transit exit. Which ongoing control would most directly detect or prevent the same failure from recurring?

  1. Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port.
  2. Validate VRF-specific route tables and access boundaries after all cross-instance policy changes.
  3. Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables.
  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 Moorland Carriers; 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:

Validate accepted tag stacks and logical-unit counters when deploying a multi-service port. The monitored boundary differs from filter-based forwarding table selection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

B:

This is a useful guard against routing instance separation, 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:

Audit the RIB group import targets and confirm that only approved prefixes are duplicated across tables. The monitored boundary differs from filter-based forwarding table selection, so the original weakness might reappear unnoticed. Filter-based forwarding selects a routing lookup table using packet classification; it does not rewrite the global best route for every packet.

Question 61

During a backbone recovery drill at fictional Northbay Telecom, the team observes: A customer VRF cannot reach an address in a second VRF even though both routing instances have healthy independent next hops. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.
  2. Martian-address handling protects routing tables from addresses that should not be accepted as normal routable destinations.
  3. Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding.
  4. VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Although martian source address rejection needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.

C:

Junos installs a usable route only after next-hop resolution and route selection; a configured static statement alone does not guarantee active forwarding. That describes static route next-hop resolution, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by routing instance separation; it does not predict the reported behavior.

D:

VSTP maintains spanning-tree behavior per VLAN; one VLAN's root decision does not automatically govern every VLAN. Those conditions do not account for the specific routing instance separation problem reported by Northbay Telecom.

Question 62

A fictional service-provider team at Valleycrest Internet is reviewing an intercity fiber refresh. The finding is: A dual-stack backbone route resolves for IPv4 but the equivalent IPv6 static route is hidden because its next-hop scope is incorrect. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes.
  2. Configure and verify compatible protocol graceful-restart capability and planned helper behavior between neighbors.
  3. Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation.
  4. Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation. This treats the fault shown by Valleycrest Internet: IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link. Confirm success when the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Enable and inspect the relevant IS-IS IPv6 address-family reachability advertisements and verify eligible routes. That could help in a case involving IS-IS IPv6 topology TLVs. This failure instead depends on IPv6 static next-hop scope; IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

B:

Configure and verify compatible protocol graceful-restart capability and planned helper behavior between neighbors. This addresses graceful restart peer assistance, but the reported symptoms arise from IPv6 static next-hop scope. For this case, verify instead that the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

D:

Allow the required scoped ICMPv6 neighbor discovery exchanges and confirm neighbor cache resolution. That could help in a case involving IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering. This failure instead depends on IPv6 static next-hop scope; IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

Question 63

The operations group at fictional Northbay Telecom, working on a backbone recovery drill, finds: A customer VRF cannot reach an address in a second VRF even though both routing instances have healthy independent next hops. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table.
  2. Inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required.
  3. Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation.
  4. Align aggregate generation with present contributing routes and confirm the discard or reject behavior and intentional export policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Inspect the forwarding lookup in the correct routing instance and apply explicit, authorized route sharing only where required. This treats the fault shown by Northbay Telecom: routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another. Confirm success when the affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Configure a scoped RIB group for the eligible interface or route source and validate that the route appears in the required secondary table. That could help in a case involving RIB group route sharing. This failure instead depends on routing instance separation; routing instances maintain separate routing and forwarding contexts; entries in one RIB do not automatically appear in another.

C:

Add an approved encryption layer such as IPsec when confidentiality is required, while retaining GRE only if needed for routing encapsulation. This addresses GRE confidentiality limitation, but the reported symptoms arise from routing instance separation. For this case, verify instead that the affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

D:

Align aggregate generation with present contributing routes and confirm the discard or reject behavior and intentional export policy. Its normal acceptance signal would be the aggregate is active only with the expected contributors and disappears when the contributor precondition is removed. Here the deciding check is different: the affected customer's lookup uses the intended instance RIB and reaches only the destinations deliberately made available to that instance.

Question 64

At fictional Fairway Telecom, during a multi-tenant service turn-up, engineers report: Large customer Ethernet frames are dropped only after an outer provider VLAN tag is added during Q-in-Q transport. 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. Access ports and trunk ports have different VLAN tagging and membership behaviors; link-up state does not make the modes equivalent.
  3. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.
  4. LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to set an end-to-end MTU that accounts for required additional Ethernet tags and verify supported hardware limits. Applied here, the relevant facts are: Large customer Ethernet frames are dropped only after an outer provider VLAN tag is added during Q-in-Q transport. 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. Those conditions do not account for the specific provider bridging MTU overhead problem reported by Fairway Telecom.

B:

Although VLAN access trunk distinction needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

D:

LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP. Those conditions do not account for the specific provider bridging MTU overhead problem reported by Fairway Telecom.

Question 65

During a virtual-router integration at fictional Orchard City Transit, the team observes: 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 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. Maintain an authoritative router-ID inventory and block duplicate assignments in provisioning checks.
  3. Document stable broadcast-segment election priorities and rehearse controlled DR failure and recovery.
  4. Compare advertised TLVs and learned route counts before and after IS-IS feature upgrades.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Audit OSPF export filters against an approved prefix list after every service addition. This monitors the behavior that failed at Orchard City Transit; the most useful acceptance signal is that the approved external route is advertised with the intended type and metric while unapproved routes are not redistributed.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Maintain an authoritative router-ID inventory and block duplicate assignments in provisioning checks. That ongoing check is for stable OSPF router identifier; it would not reliably detect recurrence of OSPF external route export. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

C:

The control protects OSPF designated router election. It does not establish the ongoing OSPF external route export behavior required in this network. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

D:

The control protects IS-IS TLV reachability. It does not establish the ongoing OSPF external route export behavior required in this network. OSPF external redistribution is controlled by export policy; stable IGP neighbor state does not imply arbitrary static or direct routes are advertised.

Question 66

A fictional service-provider team at Ironwood Transit is reviewing a carrier peering cutover. The finding is: A service provider expects nonstop active routing from a backup RE, but only chassis switchover resilience was configured. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node.
  2. 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.
  3. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.
  4. Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to enable supported NSR with required GRES on the platform, then verify routing protocol state replication and switchover behavior.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The IS-IS NET encodes area membership and system identity, which must be consistent with the planned level and unique per node. Those conditions do not account for the specific NSR protocol state replication problem reported by Ironwood Transit.

B:

Although GRES preserves forwarding not protocols needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. NSR uses GRES infrastructure while preserving routing protocol state on the backup Routing Engine, avoiding reliance on neighbor restart helpers.

D:

Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine. Those conditions do not account for the specific NSR protocol state replication problem reported by Ironwood Transit.

Question 67

The operations group at fictional Oakline Utilities, working on a wholesale access handoff, finds: An IPv6 static route uses a link-local next hop without specifying the required outgoing interface, leaving route resolution ambiguous. Which focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path.
  2. Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation.
  3. Enable compatible OSPFv3 IPv6 operation on the intended peers and validate neighbor and route state.
  4. Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Specify a reachable IPv6 next hop with correct interface scope where required and verify IPv6 route installation. This treats the fault shown by Oakline Utilities: IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link. Confirm success when the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Restore independent IPv4 underlay reachability to both tunnel endpoints and verify the IPv6 overlay path. Its normal acceptance signal would be both IPv4 endpoint paths are reachable and IPv6 packets traverse the encapsulated link end to end. Here the deciding check is different: the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

C:

Enable compatible OSPFv3 IPv6 operation on the intended peers and validate neighbor and route state. That could help in a case involving OSPFv3 IPv6 neighbor reachability. This failure instead depends on IPv6 static next-hop scope; IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link.

D:

Apply an approved outbound AS-path prepend policy on the less-preferred advertised path and validate what peers receive. This addresses AS-path prepend inbound influence, but the reported symptoms arise from IPv6 static next-hop scope. For this case, verify instead that the intended IPv6 destination has an active route with a resolved next hop and working egress interface.

Question 68

At fictional Silverstone Wireless, during a dual-stack transit pilot, engineers report: A service backbone needs subsecond detection, but administrators only tune route preference and leave failed neighbors in place. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. 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.
  2. Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine.
  3. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.
  4. BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

BFD provides rapid bidirectional path liveness detection; it triggers routing response but is not by itself a replacement route. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to use supported BFD sessions tied to the relevant routing protocol and validate fast peer failure detection. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A service backbone needs subsecond detection, but administrators only tune route preference and leave failed neighbors in place. The question asks which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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. That describes GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by BFD fast failure detection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

B:

Graceful restart depends on protocol restart and helper behavior; it is not identical to copying live routing protocol state to a backup Routing Engine. Those conditions do not account for the specific BFD fast failure detection problem reported by Silverstone Wireless.

C:

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist. That describes IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by BFD fast failure detection; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Question 69

During a multi-tenant service turn-up at fictional Kingfisher Wholesale, the team observes: A backup link should be traversed explicitly during a maintenance test, yet the segment list lacks a link-specific adjacency instruction. Which networking principle most accurately explains the observed failure?

  1. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.
  2. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.
  3. RSVP traffic engineering applies resource reservation and constrained path selection, not merely IP shortest-path routing.
  4. SR-MPLS prefix SIDs and the segment routing global block provide IGP-signaled reachability without relying on LDP for each FEC.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths. That is the specific distinction behind the observed outage. The targeted fix is to insert the appropriate valid adjacency SID for the required hop and verify the resolved segment list and actual forwarding path.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery. That describes flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by segment routing adjacency SID; it does not predict the reported behavior.

C:

This principle matters when troubleshooting RSVP path bandwidth admission, but using it here mistakes a different failure mode for segment routing adjacency SID. The relevant distinction is: an adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

D:

Although segment routing prefix SID needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths.

Question 70

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 focused engineering action would best correct the fault?

  1. Apply and verify the appropriate BGP community marking and matching terms on approved routes at the correct policy boundary.
  2. Correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange.
  3. Treat the reserved or martian prefix as invalid for production routing and correct the source instead of overriding safety rejection blindly.
  4. Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Set the intended local preference on eligible received routes and validate propagated internal best-path selection. This treats the fault shown by Elmbridge Networks: LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS. Confirm success when internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The proposal changes BGP communities and routing policy; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave BGP local preference unresolved even if its own test passed. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

B:

Correct the locally expected peer AS and actual neighbor AS identity and validate the BGP OPEN exchange. This addresses BGP ASN and OPEN negotiation, but the reported symptoms arise from BGP local preference. For this case, verify instead that internal BGP best paths prefer the approved egress due to the intended local-preference values.

C:

The proposal changes martian source address rejection; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave BGP local preference unresolved even if its own test passed. LOCAL_PREF is an intradomain BGP path attribute that normally influences preferred outbound exit for routes inside the AS.

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