Juniper JN0-664 Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 9

In the exhibit, we see an internal BGP (iBGP) setup within AS 65512, and an external BGP (eBGP) connection between R3 and ISP-A (AS 65511). The questions focus on the behavior of BGP routes advertised from R3 to R1 within the same AS.

1. **BGP Next-Hop Attribute (Option A and D)**:

- In iBGP, the next-hop attribute is **not** changed when a route is advertised to another iBGP peer. This means that when R3 advertises a route to R1, it retains the original next-hop value as learned from the eBGP peer (ISP-A).

- Therefore, Option D is correct: 'By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by R3 before being sent to R1.'

2. **BGP Attributes (Option B and C)**:

- BGP attributes such as local preference, AS-path, and others are crucial for BGP route selection. The local preference attribute is used within an AS to indicate the preferred path for outbound traffic.

- When R3 advertises BGP routes to R1, it includes the local preference value assigned to those routes. This value is not removed and is propagated within the iBGP mesh.

- Therefore, Option C is correct: 'By default, the BGP local-preference value that is assigned on R3 is advertised to R1.'

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks documentation on BGP behavior provides detailed insights into the propagation of BGP attributes within iBGP and eBGP contexts. Specifically, the Junos OS documentation covers the default behavior of next-hop and local preference attributes in BGP configurations.

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

- For a deeper understanding of BGP attributes and their default behaviors, the 'Juniper Networks Day One: Exploring BGP' book is an excellent resource.

In the context of Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and the behavior described in the exhibit, it's essential to understand the different EVPN route types and their specific functionalities. Here, CE-2 is receiving unicast traffic on both of its multihomed links to PE-2 and PE-3, but broadcast traffic is received only on one of these links.

**Explanation of EVPN Route Types**:

1. **Type 1 (Ethernet Auto-Discovery Routes)**:

- These routes are used for auto-discovery of Ethernet segments and for advertising VLAN membership.

- They do not directly influence the behavior described in the question.

2. **Type 2 (MAC/IP Advertisement Routes)**:

- These routes are used to advertise MAC addresses and IP-to-MAC bindings within the EVPN.

- They handle unicast traffic forwarding and are crucial for populating the MAC address tables on the PE devices.

- While important, they do not explain the selective broadcast behavior.

3. **Type 3 (Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Routes)**:

- These routes are used to build multicast distribution trees for delivering broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic.

- They ensure that BUM traffic is sent only once per Ethernet segment, preventing duplicate frames from being sent to multihomed CEs.

- This aligns with the behavior described where CE-2 receives broadcast traffic on only one link to prevent duplication.

4. **Type 4 (Ethernet Segment Routes)**:

- These routes are used to advertise the presence of an Ethernet segment and are crucial for Designated Forwarder (DF) election processes in multihoming scenarios.

- While relevant to multihoming, they are not directly responsible for the selective broadcast behavior.

**Conclusion**:

The behavior described, where CE-2 receives broadcast traffic on only one of its multihomed links, is controlled by Type 3 routes. These routes are specifically designed to handle inclusive multicast and broadcast traffic efficiently in EVPN environments, ensuring that such traffic is not duplicated across multiple links to the same CE.

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks EVPN Documentation: [EVPN Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/evpn-overview.html)

- RFC 7432, BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN: [RFC 7432](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432) provides detailed descriptions of EVPN route types and their functions.

- Junos OS EVPN Configuration Guide: [Junos OS EVPN Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/evpn.html)

In the given exhibit, you are observing the BGP routing information for the prefix 10.10.0.0/24. The AS path for this prefix shows `65000 {65137 65224}`. To understand the issue, let's analyze each aspect of the information provided and the options given:

1. **AS Path Analysis**:

- The AS path attribute in BGP is a list of AS numbers that a route advertisement has traversed.

- In this case, the AS path `65000 {65137 65224}` indicates that the route to 10.10.0.0/24 has been advertised through AS 65000, which includes AS 65137 and AS 65224.

2. **Understanding AS Path Prepending**:

- AS path prepending is a technique used by AS administrators to artificially lengthen the AS path.

- By adding their own AS number multiple times into the AS path, they make a route less attractive to others.

- Here, AS 65000 is showing `65137` as part of its AS path, suggesting it might be prepending to manipulate routing decisions.

3. **Options Analysis**:

- **Option A**: 'AS 65000 is pre-pending AS 65137 to route advertisements.'

- This option suggests that AS 65000 is deliberately adding AS 65137 to the AS path. This matches the observed AS path, where AS 65000 has prepended `65137`.

- Therefore, this is the correct explanation.

- **Option B**: 'The local AS is receiving two equal cost routes to 10.10.0.0/24.'

- There is no evidence in the exhibit to support the presence of two equal-cost routes.

- **Option C**: 'The local AS is in the process of withdrawing the route from AS 65137.'

- Route withdrawal would not cause the AS path to include `65000 {65137 65224}`.

- **Option D**: 'AS 65137 is advertising the 10.10.0.0/24 prefix.'

- While AS 65137 is part of the path, it does not explain the presence of AS 65000 in the path, making this option incorrect.

**Conclusion**:

The AS path `65000 {65137 65224}` is indicative of AS 65000 prepending AS 65137. Therefore, the correct answer is:

**A. AS 65000 is pre-pending AS 65137 to route advertisements.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks documentation on BGP AS path manipulation and prepending techniques.

- BGP Best Practices and Routing Policies: [Juniper Networks BGP Best Practices](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/bgp-best-practices-routing-policies.html)

- RFC 4271, A Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4): [RFC 4271](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4271) which describes the behavior and attributes of BGP, including AS path prepending.

In the context of Layer 3 VPNs (L3VPN) using MPLS, the routing information for different customers (VPNs) is typically stored in separate routing tables (VRFs). When you want to verify that PE2 is receiving the VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, you need to check the appropriate VRF routing table on PE2.

1. **Option A: show route table customer-c.inet.0**

- This command displays the routing table specific to Customer C's VRF.

- Since we want to verify that PE2 has received the VPN routes for Customer C, this is the most appropriate command to use.

- It allows us to see all routes learned for Customer C's VPN.

2. **Option B: show route table bgp.l3vpn.0**

- This command displays the BGP routing table for all L3VPN routes.

- While this includes routes for Customer C, it also includes routes for all other VPNs, making it harder to isolate the specific information for Customer C.

- This command is more useful for an overall view of BGP L3VPN routes rather than for a specific customer's VRF.

3. **Option C: show route summary**

- This command provides a summary of the routes in all routing tables.

- It doesn't give detailed information about the specific routes for Customer C's VRF.

- It's useful for a high-level overview but not for verifying specific customer routes.

4. **Option D: show route table inet.0**

- This command shows the global routing table, not the VRF-specific tables.

- The global routing table doesn't contain the VPN-specific routes that are stored in the VRF tables.

- Therefore, it won't help in verifying the routes for Customer C.

**Conclusion**:

To verify that PE2 is receiving VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, the most appropriate command is to check the specific VRF routing table for Customer C. Hence, the correct answer is:

**A. show route table customer-c.inet.0**

**Reference**:

- Junos OS documentation on MPLS VPNs: [Junos MPLS VPNs Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-vpns.html)

- Command Reference for Routing Tables: [Junos OS Routing Tables Command Reference](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/command-summary/show-route-table.html)

In the provided exhibit, the output of the `show pim join extensive 232.1.1.1` command is shown. This command provides detailed information about the PIM join state for the specified multicast group (232.1.1.1) on the router R1. To determine the correct statements regarding the multicast traffic, let's analyze the output and the terms involved:

1. **ASM vs. SSM**:

- **ASM (Any-Source Multicast)**: In ASM, receivers are interested in receiving multicast traffic from any source sending to a particular multicast group.

- **SSM (Source-Specific Multicast)**: In SSM, receivers are interested in receiving traffic only from specific sources for a multicast group.

- **Group Address Range**:

- ASM uses the range 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255.

- SSM uses the range 232.0.0.0 to 232.255.255.255.

Since the group address 232.1.1.1 falls within the SSM range (232.0.0.0/8), there might be confusion. However, considering the flags and states in the output, it's evident that the PIM mode and source information are consistent with ASM behavior.

2. **Multicast Trees**:

- **RPT (Rendezvous Point Tree)**: Multicast traffic initially uses the RPT, where the Rendezvous Point (RP) acts as an intermediate point.

- **SPT (Shortest Path Tree)**: After the initial join via RPT, traffic can switch to SPT, which is a direct path from the source to the receiver.

3. **Output Analysis**:

- **Flags**:

- The flags `sparse, rp-tree, wildcard` indicate that the group 232.1.1.1 is currently using RPT. This is typical for ASM, where traffic initially goes through the RP.

- The flags `sparse, spt` indicate that for the source 172.16.1.2, traffic has switched to SPT, meaning it is using the shortest path from the source directly to the receivers.

**Conclusion**:

Based on the analysis:

- **A. The multicast group is an ASM group**: This statement is correct as the configuration and behavior indicate ASM operation.

- **B. The multicast traffic is using the SPT**: This statement is also correct because the flags for the source 172.16.1.2 indicate that the traffic is using the SPT.

Thus, the correct answers are:

**A. The multicast group is an ASM group.**

**B. The multicast traffic is using the SPT.**

**Reference**:

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

- Junos OS Multicast Routing Configuration Guide: [Multicast Routing Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/multicast-routing.html)

In the exhibit, the PE-to-CE protocol used is OSPF, and there is an OSPF neighborship between CE-1 and CE-2 within the same Area 0. Let's analyze the default OSPF routing behavior in this setup to determine the correct statement.

1. **OSPF Neighborship**:

- CE-1 and CE-2 have an OSPF neighborship directly within Area 0.

- OSPF prefers intra-area routes over inter-area and external routes.

2. **Default Routing Behavior**:

- Since CE-1 and CE-2 are directly connected through an OSPF link within the same area, OSPF will prefer this direct intra-area path over any other paths learned via the PE routers and the L3VPN.

- This is because intra-area routes have a lower metric compared to inter-area or external routes.

3. **Metric Considerations**:

- By default, OSPF will route traffic between Site-1 and Site-2 through the direct link between CE-1 and CE-2, unless the link's metric is artificially increased to make it less preferable.

- There is no need to adjust metrics for the CE-1 to PE-1 link to prefer the CE-1 to CE-2 path, as OSPF already prefers direct intra-area paths.

**Conclusion**:

Given the default behavior of OSPF and the topology shown in the exhibit, the correct statement is:

**B. Hosts at Site-1 will reach hosts at Site-2 through the CE-1 and CE-2 link by default.**

**Reference**:

- OSPF Design Guide: [Juniper Networks OSPF Design Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-design-overview.html)

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

In the exhibit, the output of the `show route protocol bgp` command is shown for the prefix `172.16.20.4/30`. Let's analyze the provided BGP routing table to determine which statements are correct.

1. **AS Path Analysis**:

- The AS path for the route `172.16.20.4/30` is shown as `2 I`.

- This indicates that the route was learned from AS 2 and it is an internal (iBGP) route within the same AS.

2. **Multiple Paths**:

- The route has two next-hop IP addresses: `10.0.18.2` via interface `ge-1/0/4.0` and `10.0.19.2` via interface `ge-1/0/5.0`.

- This indicates that BGP multipath is configured, which allows multiple equal-cost paths to be used for load balancing.

- BGP multipath must be explicitly configured to use multiple paths for the same prefix.

3. **Multihop vs. Multipath**:

- **Multihop Configuration**: This is typically used for establishing BGP sessions with peers that are not directly connected. It is not related to load balancing.

- **Multipath Configuration**: This is used to enable load balancing across multiple paths for the same prefix, which is the case here.

**Conclusion**:

Given the above analysis:

- **C. This route is learned from the same AS number**: Correct. The AS path `2 I` indicates the route was learned from the same AS number (AS 2).

- **D. The multipath configuration is used for load balancing**: Correct. The presence of multiple next-hops indicates that BGP multipath is configured for load balancing.

Thus, the correct answers are:

**C. This route is learned from the same AS number.**

**D. The multipath configuration is used for load balancing.**

**Reference**:

- Junos OS BGP Multipath Documentation: [Junos OS BGP Multipath](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/bgp-multipath.html)

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

Interprovider Option C for Layer 3 VPNs involves the use of Autonomous System Boundary Routers (ASBRs) to exchange labeled VPN-IPv4 routes between different Autonomous Systems (AS). This option requires BGP sessions between ASBRs, and the VPN routes are carried end-to-end using MPLS labels. Here's a detailed analysis of the roles of different routers in this scenario:

1. **ASBR Routers**:

- ASBRs are responsible for exchanging VPN-IPv4 routes between different ASes.

- **A. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback addresses from the other AS PEs.**

- Correct. ASBRs maintain routes to internal destinations within their own AS, and they also need to know the loopback addresses of PEs in the other AS to set up the BGP sessions and MPLS tunnels.

2. **PE Routers**:

- PE routers are responsible for maintaining VPN routes and label information to forward VPN traffic correctly.

- **B. PE routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

- Correct. PE routers need to maintain:

- Internal routes within their AS for routing.

- Loopback addresses of other AS PEs for establishing MPLS LSPs.

- L3VPN routes to provide end-to-end VPN connectivity.

3. **P Routers**:

- P routers are the core routers that do not participate in BGP VPN routing but forward labeled packets based on MPLS labels.

- **C. P routers only maintain the internal routes from their own AS.**

- Correct. P routers maintain the internal routing information to forward packets within the AS and use MPLS labels for forwarding VPN packets. They do not maintain VPN routes or routes from other ASes.

4. **Incorrect Statements**:

- **D. P routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback address from the other AS PEs.**

- Incorrect. P routers do not need to maintain the loopback addresses of other AS PEs. They only maintain internal routing and MPLS label information.

- **E. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

- Incorrect. ASBR routers do not maintain L3VPN routes. They exchange labeled VPN-IPv4 routes with other ASBRs and forward them to PE routers.

**Conclusion**:

The correct answers are:

**A. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback addresses from the other AS PEs.**

**B. PE routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

**C. P routers only maintain the internal routes from their own AS.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on Interprovider VPNs: [Interprovider VPN Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-vpn-interprovider.html)

- MPLS and VPN Architectures, CCIP Edition by Ivan Pepelnjak and Jim Guichard

The `vrf-target` statement in a Layer 3 VPN configuration is used to control the import and export of VPN routes by attaching a target community to the routes. This helps in defining which VPN routes should be imported into or exported from a particular VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instance.

1. **Understanding VRF Target**:

- The `vrf-target` statement specifies the extended community attributes (route targets) that are used to control the import and export of routes in a VRF.

- These attributes help in identifying which routes should be shared between different VRFs, particularly across different PE (Provider Edge) devices.

2. **Statements Analysis**:

- **A. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the local CE device.**

- Incorrect. The `vrf-target` attribute is not used to identify routes learned from the local CE device. It is used to manage routes between PE devices and within the provider's MPLS network.

- **B. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the remote PE device.**

- Correct. The `vrf-target` value helps in identifying which routes from remote PE devices should be imported into the local VRF. It essentially acts as a filter for importing BGP routes with matching target communities.

- **C. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the local CE device.**

- Incorrect. Routes advertised to the local CE device do not use the `vrf-target` attribute. Instead, these routes are typically managed within the local VRF routing table.

- **D. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the remote PE device.**

- Correct. When advertising routes from the local PE to remote PE devices, the `vrf-target` value is added to these routes. This target community ensures that the correct routes are shared across the VPN.

**Conclusion**:

The correct statements about the `vrf-target` configuration in a Layer 3 VPN scenario are:

**B. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the remote PE device.**

**D. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the remote PE device.**

**Reference**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on VRF Target: [VRF Target Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/layer-3-vpns.html)

- MPLS and VPN Architectures by Ivan Pepelnjak and Jim Guichard