Juniper JN0-364 Questions & Answers

Bind the correct VLAN bridge domain to its intended IRB routed interface and verify gateway addressing and routing. This addresses integrated routing and bridging, but the reported symptoms arise from provider bridging MTU overhead. For this case, verify instead that tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. Its normal acceptance signal would be the two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election. Here the deciding check is different: tagged test frames of the required service size traverse each handoff without oversize or discard counters rising.

The proposal changes MAC address learning and moves; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave provider bridging MTU overhead unresolved even if its own test passed. Provider tag stacking adds frame overhead; an unchanged link MTU may reject frames that previously fitted untagged.

Monitor exported AS paths and actual traffic after inbound-traffic-engineering changes. That ongoing check is for AS-path prepend inbound influence; it would not reliably detect recurrence of EBGP multihop reachability. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

Verify best paths on multiple iBGP speakers after local-preference policy revisions. That ongoing check is for BGP local preference; it would not reliably detect recurrence of EBGP multihop reachability. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

Exercise matched and unmatched test flows after changes and monitor the filter counters and selected forwarding table. That ongoing check is for filter-based forwarding table selection; it would not reliably detect recurrence of EBGP multihop reachability. EBGP sessions to nonadjacent neighbors need suitable multihop TTL and transport reachability; routing reachability alone can be insufficient.

Although RSVP PATH and RESV signaling needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. IPv6 Neighbor Discovery uses ICMPv6 to resolve on-link next hops; blocking it disrupts forwarding even if static routes exist.

IPv6 link-local next hops are interface-scoped; a bare link-local address can be insufficient to identify the outgoing link. Those conditions do not account for the specific IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering problem reported by Fernstone Logistics.

IS-IS can carry IPv6 topology and prefix information using appropriate TLVs; an IPv4 route table is not a substitute. Those conditions do not account for the specific IPv6 neighbor discovery filtering problem reported by Fernstone Logistics.

The proposal changes OSPF area LSA propagation; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave OSPF point-to-point topology unresolved even if its own test passed. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Tune the intended OSPF interface costs and verify SPF-selected reachability for the affected destinations. This addresses OSPF interface metric selection, but the reported symptoms arise from OSPF point-to-point topology. For this case, verify instead that the two peers form a Full point-to-point adjacency without a broadcast-segment DR election.

Inspect transit MPLS forwarding entries and repair the mismatched label-to-next-hop mapping or underlying interface path. That could help in a case involving MPLS label forwarding table mismatch. This failure instead depends on OSPF point-to-point topology; OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

The check is meaningful for stable OSPF router identifier, but it does not prove that OSPF point-to-point topology was repaired. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

This measurement tests IS-IS TLV reachability; it cannot distinguish success from failure for the observed OSPF point-to-point topology condition. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

The check is meaningful for OSPF area identity mismatch, but it does not prove that OSPF point-to-point topology was repaired. OSPF point-to-point interfaces do not use a DR or BDR; this differs from a shared multiaccess Ethernet network.

Validate eligible equal-cost next hops and the configured forwarding-table export load-balancing behavior, measuring distribution across multiple flows. This addresses equal-cost forwarding flow hashing, but the reported symptoms arise from LACP aggregation consistency. For this case, verify instead that every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

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 LACP aggregation consistency. For this case, verify instead that every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

Keep GRES for forwarding continuity and enable the appropriate supported NSB for bridging or NSR or graceful restart for routing sessions as required. This addresses GRES preserves forwarding not protocols, but the reported symptoms arise from LACP aggregation consistency. For this case, verify instead that every intended member joins the same aggregation and distributes frames according to the approved LAG hash behavior.

An adjacency SID steers traffic across a specific link, whereas a prefix SID steers toward a node or prefix along shortest paths. That describes segment routing adjacency SID, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by RSVP PATH and RESV signaling; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Although RIB group route sharing needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

Although LDP label binding completeness needs this consideration, the failure at issue has a different cause. RSVP-TE establishes LSP state through forward PATH and reverse RESV processing; one-way PATH reception is insufficient.

MPLS forwards using labels: ingress commonly pushes labels, intermediate LSRs swap them, and the egress removes the remaining label. That describes MPLS label push swap pop, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by MPLS label stack bottom bit; it does not predict the reported behavior.

LDP uses discovery messages on enabled interfaces before exchanging label mappings; IGP reachability alone does not start LDP. That describes LDP neighbor discovery, whereas the observed symptoms are caused by MPLS label stack bottom bit; it does not predict the reported behavior.

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 MPLS label stack bottom bit; it does not predict the reported behavior.

Set access or trunk interface mode to match the attached device and approved VLAN membership. Its normal acceptance signal would be hosts receive the intended untagged frames and trunk links carry the specified VLAN tags with correct membership. Here the deciding check is different: the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

The proposal changes integrated routing and bridging; that is not the failure isolated by the facts. It could leave flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment unresolved even if its own test passed. Junos interface VLAN tagging mode and logical-unit encapsulation must match received frame format for successful delivery.

Set and verify the suitable point-to-point OSPF network type on both intended endpoints. This addresses OSPF point-to-point topology, but the reported symptoms arise from flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment. For this case, verify instead that the correct single- and double-tagged service units receive traffic matching their configured VLAN identifiers.

Align the port's supported flexible VLAN tagging and per-unit encapsulation with the intended service frame format. This addresses flexible VLAN encapsulation alignment, but the reported symptoms arise from MAC address learning and moves. For this case, verify instead that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

Apply root protection on boundary designated ports where upstream superiority must be blocked and verify root placement. This addresses RSTP root protection, but the reported symptoms arise from MAC address learning and moves. For this case, verify instead that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

Configure the appropriate provider bridge service tag and preserve customer inner tags across the carrier handoff. This addresses provider Q-in-Q tagging, but the reported symptoms arise from MAC address learning and moves. For this case, verify instead that the MAC address stabilizes on the expected interface and unicast forwarding avoids repeated flooding.

The check is meaningful for OSPF MTU negotiation, but it does not prove that RSTP alternate port reconvergence was repaired. RSTP port roles and rapid state transitions support fast loop-free reconvergence, unlike simply forcing all redundant ports forwarding.

The impacted non-designated port stays protected while BPDUs are absent and returns only after control-plane health is restored. That establishes RSTP loop protection rather than a repaired RSTP alternate port reconvergence path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops.

Adjacent devices report matching MST region configuration and VLANs map to the same intended instances. That establishes MSTP region consistency rather than a repaired RSTP alternate port reconvergence path. The reported failure still requires this evidence: the alternate port assumes an appropriate forwarding role on failure without allowing simultaneous Layer 2 loops. Applied here, the relevant facts are: A shared access segment has unexpected forwarding behavior after root failure because alternate and designated roles were not identified. The question asks which observation would most directly establish that the reported failure has been repaired.