Juniper JN0-664 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 8

as by default, the MED attribute is only compared for routes received from the same neighbouring AS. The next feasible tiebreaker in the BGP route selection algorithm would be Router ID.

Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) is a link-state routing protocol designed to move information efficiently within a computer network, a group of physically connected computers or similar devices. It operates in two levels, Level 1 (L1) and Level 2 (L2), and supports hierarchical routing within a multi-area network.

Let's analyze each statement to determine its correctness in the context of IS-IS multi-area networks.

1. **Statement A: Internal L1 PDUs are flooded to the local area's L2 routers.**

- This statement is correct. L1 PDUs (Protocol Data Units) are flooded within the L1 area and also to the L2 routers that are present in the same area. These L2 routers act as the boundary routers that connect the local L1 area to other L1 areas via L2.

2. **Statement B: External L2 PDUs are flooded to all L2 routers in other areas.**

- This statement is correct. L2 PDUs are flooded throughout the entire L2 backbone, which includes all L2 routers in different areas. This ensures that inter-area routing information is shared across the network.

3. **Statement C: Internal L1 PDUs are flooded to all L1 routers in other areas.**

- This statement is incorrect. Internal L1 PDUs are only flooded within the local L1 area. They do not cross L1 area boundaries; inter-area communication is handled by L2 routers.

4. **Statement D: Internal L1 PDUs are only flooded to the local area's L1 routers.**

- This statement is correct. Internal L1 PDUs are indeed only flooded within their local L1 area, and do not go beyond it.

5. **Statement E: External L2 PDUs are only flooded to the local area's L2 routers.**

- This statement is incorrect. External L2 PDUs are flooded to all L2 routers throughout the IS-IS network, not just to those in the local area. This allows L2 routers to maintain a complete map of the network's topology.

**Conclusion**:

Given the analysis, the correct answers are:

**A. Internal L1 PDUs are flooded to the local area's L2 routers.**

**B. External L2 PDUs are flooded to all L2 routers in other areas.**

**D. Internal L1 PDUs are only flooded to the local area's L1 routers.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on IS-IS: [IS-IS Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html)

- RFC 1195, Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments: [RFC 1195](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1195) which details the operation of IS-IS in multi-area networks.

In OSPF, routers form adjacencies by exchanging Hello packets. These packets contain several parameters that must match between OSPF neighbors to establish a successful adjacency. Key among these parameters are the Hello Interval and the Dead Interval.

Let's analyze the exhibit and the question to determine the correct course of action to ensure that R4 peers with both R1 and R2.

1. **OSPF Hello and Dead Intervals**:

- **Hello Interval**: The time in seconds between Hello packets sent out by a router. Default is usually 10 seconds for broadcast and point-to-point networks.

- **Dead Interval**: The time in seconds that a router will wait to receive a Hello packet from a neighbor before declaring the neighbor down. Default is usually four times the Hello Interval (40 seconds).

2. **Analysis of the Exhibit**:

- **R1's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R2's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R4's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 20 seconds.

From the exhibit, we can see that R4 has a Dead Interval of 20 seconds, while R1 and R2 have Dead Intervals of 40 seconds. This discrepancy prevents R4 from establishing an OSPF peering with R1.

3. **Option Analysis**:

- **A. Adjust the Priority on R1 to be lower than the Priority on R4**:

- Incorrect. The OSPF Priority is used for DR/BDR election on multi-access networks and does not impact peering issues.

- **B. Change the MTU size on R1 and R2 to be 22 bytes higher than R4's MTU size**:

- Incorrect. While MTU mismatches can prevent OSPF adjacencies, the exhibit does not indicate an MTU mismatch issue.

- **C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2**:

- Correct. Matching the Dead Interval on R4 to 40 seconds will ensure that all routers have consistent Hello and Dead Intervals, allowing OSPF adjacencies to form.

- **D. Adjust the Hello Interval on R1 and R2 to match the Hello Interval on R4**:

- While this would be a valid approach if the Hello Intervals were mismatched, the exhibit shows that the Hello Intervals are consistent (10 seconds) across all routers. Therefore, this adjustment is not necessary.

**Conclusion**:

To correct the OSPF peering issue, the Dead Interval on R4 should be adjusted to match the Dead Intervals on R1 and R2. The correct answer is:

**C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on OSPF: [OSPF Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Configuring OSPF](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/ospf-configuring.html)

In IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) routing, each router is identified by a unique ISO (International Organization for Standardization) address, also known as a Network Entity Title (NET). The NET consists of three parts:

1. **Area Identifier**: Indicates the area to which the router belongs.

2. **System Identifier**: Uniquely identifies the router within the area.

3. **NSAP Selector (NSEL)**: Typically set to 00 for a router, indicating the Network Service Access Point.

The format of the ISO address is `49.XXXX.YYYY.YYYY.ZZZZ.ZZZZ.00`, where:

- `49` is the AFI (Authority and Format Identifier) indicating a private address.

- `XXXX` is the Area Identifier.

- `YYYY.YYYY.YYYY` is the System Identifier.

- `ZZZZ.ZZZZ` is the NSAP Selector.

Given the address `49.0001.00a0.c96b.c490.00`:

- **Area Identifier**: `49.0001`

- **System Identifier**: `00a0.c96b.c490`

- **NSAP Selector**: `00`

**Explanation**:

- **A. 00a0.c96b.c490 is the system identifier**:

- Correct. The System Identifier in an ISO address is a 48-bit (6-byte) field used to uniquely identify the router. In this address, `00a0.c96b.c490` is the correct 6-byte System Identifier.

- **B. 0001.00a0.c96b.c490 is the system identifier**:

- Incorrect. This includes the Area Identifier as part of the System Identifier, which is not correct.

- **C. c96b.c490 is the system identifier**:

- Incorrect. This is only part of the System Identifier. The full System Identifier must be 6 bytes long.

- **D. c490 is the system identifier**:

- Incorrect. This is an incomplete and incorrect part of the System Identifier.

**Conclusion**:

The correct part of the address that represents the System Identifier is:

**A. 00a0.c96b.c490 is the system identifier.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on IS-IS: [IS-IS Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/isis-configuring.html)

- ISO/IEC 10589, the IS-IS routing protocol standard.

For a Layer 3 VPN to function correctly, an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) must be established between the Provider Edge (PE) routers. The MPLS LSP is necessary for the transport of VPN traffic across the service provider's backbone network. If the MPLS LSP is not established, the PE routers cannot forward the VPN traffic properly, causing the routes to be hidden in the BGP routing table.

Here's a breakdown of why the other options are less likely:

A . The routes use overlapping IP addresses.

Overlapping IP addresses might cause issues with route advertisement and selection, but they would not typically cause routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table.

C . There is a routing loop in the service provider backbone.

While routing loops are problematic, they would not specifically cause the routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. Routing loops would more likely result in dropped packets or increased latency.

D . Route targets are not configured.

Incorrect or missing route target configuration would prevent routes from being imported into the correct VRF, but it would not usually result in the routes being hidden. Instead, they would simply not appear in the relevant VRF.

Thus, the absence of an established MPLS LSP is the most plausible cause for the routes being hidden.

The class-of-service (CoS) configuration in the exhibit shows how traffic is scheduled on the ge-0/0/0 interface. Let's analyze each statement to determine its correctness:

A . Incoming traffic will not be classified because no classifier exists in the configuration.

This statement is correct. The configuration shown does not include any classifier, so no explicit classification is defined. As a result, incoming traffic will not be classified according to any custom criteria.

B . The best-effort queue can transmit more than 40% of the total bandwidth on the ge-0/0/0 interface, if no other queue is using that bandwidth.

This statement is correct. The transmit-rate percent 40 means that 40% of the bandwidth is guaranteed for the best-effort queue, but it can use more bandwidth if other queues (like the priority scheduler) are not utilizing their allocated bandwidth.

C . Incoming traffic will be classified using the default classifier.

This statement is incorrect. Without an explicit classifier in the configuration, there is no mention of a default classifier being used. Therefore, the incoming traffic won't be classified based on the configuration shown.

D . The best-effort queue can never transmit more than 40% of the total bandwidth on the ge-0/0/0 interface, even if that bandwidth is available.

This statement is incorrect. The transmit-rate percent 40 sets a guaranteed minimum bandwidth but does not set a maximum limit. The best-effort queue can utilize more bandwidth if other queues are not using their allocated portions.

In PIM-SM (Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode), the Designated Router (DR) plays a crucial role in multicast forwarding. The DR is responsible for various tasks depending on whether it is connected to the source or the receiver. Let's analyze each statement regarding the PIM DR in a PIM-SM domain.

1. **Statement A: The source DR sends PIM register messages from the source network to the RP.**

- Correct. In PIM-SM, the DR on the source's local network is responsible for encapsulating multicast packets in PIM Register messages and sending them to the Rendezvous Point (RP). This process ensures that the RP is aware of active sources.

2. **Statement B: If the DR priorities match, the router with the lowest IP address is selected as the DR.**

- Incorrect. The correct rule is that if the DR priorities match, the router with the **highest** IP address is selected as the DR. The election process first compares priorities; if priorities are equal, the IP addresses are compared to select the DR.

3. **Statement C: The receiver DR sends PIM join and PIM prune messages from the receiver network toward the RP.**

- Correct. In PIM-SM, the DR on the receiver's local network sends PIM Join messages toward the RP to join the multicast distribution tree. Similarly, it sends PIM Prune messages to leave the tree when there are no interested receivers.

4. **Statement D: By default, PIM DR election is performed on point-to-point links.**

- Incorrect. By default, PIM DR election is performed on multi-access networks (e.g., Ethernet). On point-to-point links, there is no need for a DR election as there are only two routers involved.

**Conclusion**:

The correct statements regarding the PIM DR in a PIM-SM domain are:

**A. The source DR sends PIM register messages from the source network to the RP.**

**C. The receiver DR sends PIM join and PIM prune messages from the receiver network toward the RP.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on PIM-SM: [PIM-SM Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/pim-sparse-mode-overview.html)

- RFC 7761, Protocol Independent Multicast - Sparse Mode (PIM-SM): [RFC 7761](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7761) which details the PIM-SM protocol, including DR roles and election procedures.

In the provided exhibit, the configuration involves using a RIB (Routing Information Base) group to facilitate internet access for VPN-A Site 1 through PE-1. The goal is to provide VRF Internet access over a single connection.

1. **Understanding RIB Groups**:

- RIB groups allow for the import and export of routes between different routing tables.

- In this scenario, we have two RIBs: `inet.0` (the main routing table) and `VPN-A.inet.0` (the VRF-specific routing table).

2. **Statement Analysis**:

- **A. You must use the RIB group to move a default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Correct. To provide Internet access to VPN-A, the default route (0.0.0.0/0) learned via BGP in the `inet.0` table must be made available in the `VPN-A.inet.0` table. This is done using the RIB group to import the default route.

- **B. You do not need to use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Correct. Interface routes (connected routes) are typically directly added to both the global and the VRF routing tables without needing a RIB group. These routes are known to the VRF because the interfaces are part of the VRF configuration.

- **C. You do not need to use the RIB group default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Incorrect. As discussed, the default route needs to be imported into the VRF's routing table using a RIB group to enable Internet access for the VRF.

- **D. You must use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Incorrect. Interface routes are directly associated with the VRF interfaces and are automatically known to the VRF routing table. There is no need to use a RIB group for these routes.

**Conclusion**:

The correct answers are:

**A. You must use the RIB group to move a default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

**B. You do not need to use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on RIB Groups: [RIB Groups Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/rib-groups-overview.html)

- Junos OS VPNs Configuration Guide: [Junos VPNs Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/vpns-overview.html)

In an L2VPN scenario, the provider network connects two customer edge (CE) devices across a Layer 2 virtual private network. Let's analyze how OSPF operates in this setup.

1. **OSPF Neighborship in L2VPN**:

- An L2VPN provides a Layer 2 connection between two sites, making it transparent to Layer 3 protocols like OSPF. This means the CEs can form OSPF adjacencies directly with each other as if they were on the same local network.

2. **OSPF Configuration on CEs and PEs**:

- **Statement A: OSPF neighborship is formed between the CEs and PEs**:

- Incorrect. In an L2VPN, the provider's network is transparent to the OSPF running on the CEs. OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, not between the CEs and PEs.

- **Statement B: The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different**:

- Correct. Since OSPF adjacencies form directly between the CEs and not between CEs and PEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs can be different. The provider network acts as a transparent bridge, and OSPF doesn't see the PEs.

- **Statement C: The CE and PE OSPF areas must match**:

- Incorrect. As noted above, because the OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs do not need to match.

- **Statement D: OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs**:

- Correct. The L2VPN makes the connection between the two CEs appear as a direct Layer 2 link, allowing them to form an OSPF adjacency directly.

**Conclusion**:

Given the above analysis, the correct statements are:

**B. The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different.**

**D. OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on L2VPNs: [Configuring Layer 2 VPNs](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer-2-vpns-configuring.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Junos OS OSPF Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)