2025 NEWEST RELIABLE JN0-664 STUDY NOTES | 100% FREE CERTIFICATION JN0-664 TRAINING

2025 Newest Reliable JN0-664 Study Notes | 100% Free Certification JN0-664 Training

2025 Newest Reliable JN0-664 Study Notes | 100% Free Certification JN0-664 Training

Blog Article

Tags: Reliable JN0-664 Study Notes, Certification JN0-664 Training, JN0-664 Real Question, JN0-664 Valid Study Materials, JN0-664 Exam Dumps Provider

What's more, part of that DumpsKing JN0-664 dumps now are free: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nv0AXgMPxCEhPOVQedmQim6Q3Wl01qHx

Our customer service is available all day, and your problems can be solved efficiently at any time. Last but not least, we can guarantee the security of the purchase process of JN0-664 test questions and the absolute confidentiality of customer information. You do not have to worry about these issues, because we know that this is a basic condition for us to establish a good business model. At the same time, if you want to continue learning, JN0-664 Test Torrent will provide you with the benefits of free updates within one year and a discount of more than one year.

The JN0-664 exam consists of 65 multiple-choice questions that must be completed within 120 minutes. JN0-664 exam is computer-based and is administered at Pearson VUE testing centers worldwide. Candidates must achieve a passing score of 65% or higher to earn the JNCIP-SP certification.

Juniper JN0-664 (Service Provider, Professional (JNCIP-SP)) Exam is a certification exam that is designed to test the knowledge and skills of IT professionals who are seeking to become certified as Juniper Networks Certified Internet Professionals in the Service Provider space. JN0-664 Exam is intended for those who have already obtained the Juniper Networks Certified Internet Associate (JNCIA-SP) certification and have some experience in the field.

>> Reliable JN0-664 Study Notes <<

JN0-664 Study Materials and Service Provider, Professional (JNCIP-SP) Test Dumps - JN0-664 PDF Guide - DumpsKing

DumpsKing's products can not only help you successfully pass Juniper certification JN0-664 Exams, but also provide you a year of free online update service, which will deliver the latest product to customers at the first time to let them have a full preparation for the exam. If you fail the exam, we will give you a full refund.

Juniper Service Provider, Professional (JNCIP-SP) Sample Questions (Q43-Q48):

NEW QUESTION # 43
Click the Exhibit button.

You enabled a new router (R3) in your network but all destinations using IS-IS routes are not properly load balancing over this new router.
Referring to the exhibit, what is the problem?

  • A. R1 is missing internal routes for R2.
  • B. R2 is missing internal routes for R1.
  • C. R1 does not have wide-metrics enabled.
  • D. R3 does not have wide-metrics enabled.

Answer: D

Explanation:
Let's dive into this IS-IS routing problem with a Juniper Networks (JNCIP-SP) perspective, analyze the exhibit, and determine why load balancing isn't working as expected after adding the new router R3. I'll provide a verified answer and a detailed explanation step by step.
C: R3 does not have wide-metrics enabled.
Detailed Explanation
1. Understanding the Exhibit
The exhibit shows the output of IS-IS database commands on two routers, R1 and R2, at Level 2 (L2). IS-IS (Intermediate System to Intermediate System) is a link-state routing protocol commonly used in service provider networks. The output provides details about the IS-IS database, including IP prefixes, metrics, and whether the router supports "wide metrics."
* R1's IS-IS Database (Level 2):
* IP prefix: 10.100.34.0/24
* Internal, Metric: default 63, Up
* IP extended prefix: 10.100.34.0/24, metric 63, Up
* IP extended prefix: 10.100.13.0/24, metric 63, Up
* R2's IS-IS Database (Level 2):
* IP extended prefix: 10.100.12.0/24, metric 1000, Up
* IP extended prefix: 10.100.23.0/24, metric 1000, Up
Additionally, the exhibit mentions that R1 and R2 can "find TLVs" and "match prefix," indicating they are processing IS-IS Type-Length-Value (TLV) data correctly. However, R3 has been newly added, and load balancing across this router isn't working as expected.
2. Key Concepts in IS-IS
To understand the issue, let's break down some critical IS-IS concepts relevant to this scenario:
* IS-IS Levels: IS-IS operates at two levels: Level 1 (L1) for intra-area routing and Level 2 (L2) for inter- area routing. The exhibit shows Level 2, so we're dealing with backbone routing between areas.
* Metrics in IS-IS:
* Default Metrics (Narrow Metrics): By default, IS-IS uses narrow metrics, which are limited to a maximum value of 63 per link (and a maximum path metric of 1023). This is encoded in the original IS-IS TLVs (Type 2 for LSPs).
* Wide Metrics: Wide metrics (introduced in RFC 3784) allow for larger metric values (up to
16,777,215) and are encoded in extended TLVs (Type 22 for LSPs, Type 135 for IP reachability).
Wide metrics are necessary for modern networks where higher metric values are needed for better path selection or when integrating with other protocols like OSPF.
* Load Balancing in IS-IS: IS-IS supports equal-cost multi-path (ECMP) routing, meaning if multiple paths to a destination have the same total metric, traffic can be load-balanced across those paths. For load balancing to work, all routers in the path must agree on the metrics and the paths must be equal- cost.
* TLVs and Extended Prefixes: The exhibit shows "IP extended prefix" entries, which are carried in TLV 135 (for IPv4) when wide metrics are enabled. "IP prefix" (without "extended") refers to the older TLV 128, which uses narrow metrics.
3. Analyzing the Metrics in the Exhibit
* R1's Output:
* R1 advertises 10.100.34.0/24 and 10.100.13.0/24 with a metric of 63.
* The presence of both "IP prefix" and "IP extended prefix" for the same prefix (10.100.34.0/24) suggests R1 is in transition mode. Transition mode means R1 supports both narrow and wide metrics to maintain compatibility with routers that may not support wide metrics.
* R2's Output:
* R2 advertises 10.100.12.0/24 and 10.100.23.0/24 with a metric of 1000.
* These are listed as "IP extended prefix," meaning R2 is using wide metrics (since a metric of
1000 exceeds the narrow metric limit of 63 per link).
4. Identifying the Problem
The issue is that load balancing isn't working over the new router R3. Let's evaluate why:
* Metric Discrepancy: R1 is using a metric of 63 (which fits within narrow metrics), while R2 is using a metric of 1000 (which requires wide metrics). This suggests that R1 and R2 are operating with different metric styles:
* R1 is likely in transition mode (supporting both narrow and wide metrics).
* R2 is using wide metrics exclusively (since its metric of 1000 can only be advertised using wide metrics).
* R3's Role: Since R3 is newly added and load balancing isn't working, we need to consider R3's configuration. The exhibit doesn't show R3's IS-IS database, but the options suggest a problem with wide metrics on either R1 or R3.
* Wide Metrics Requirement: For load balancing to work, all routers in the IS-IS domain must consistently use the same metric style (either all narrow or all wide). If R3 doesn't have wide metrics enabled, it can only process narrow metrics (max 63 per link). This means:
* R3 would ignore R2's advertisements (metric 1000) because they use wide metrics, which R3 can't process.
* R3 would only process R1's narrow metric advertisements (metric 63), leading to incomplete routing information and preventing load balancing.
5. Evaluating the Options
Let's go through each option to confirm the correct answer:
* A. R2 is missing internal routes for R1:
* R2's database shows prefixes like 10.100.12.0/24 and 10.100.23.0/24, but it doesn't show R1's prefixes. However, this is expected because the exhibit only shows a subset of the database. The problem is about load balancing, not missing routes entirely. R2 likely has routes from R1 but may not be able to use them for load balancing if metric styles don't match. This option is incorrect.
* B. R1 is missing internal routes for R2:
* R1's database shows its own prefixes (10.100.34.0/24, 10.100.13.0/24) but not R2's prefixes.
Again, this is likely because the exhibit is limited. R1 should have R2's routes in its database (since they're both in Level 2), but the issue is load balancing, not missing routes. This option is incorrect.
* C. R3 does not have wide-metrics enabled:
* If R3 doesn't have wide metrics enabled, it can only process narrow metrics (max 63). R2's prefixes with a metric of 1000 (using wide metrics) would be ignored by R3. This would result in R3 having an incomplete view of the network, preventing load balancing across paths that involve R2's prefixes. This aligns with the problem described and is the most likely cause. This option is correct.
* D. R1 does not have wide-metrics enabled:
* R1's output shows "IP extended prefix" entries, which are only advertised if wide metrics are enabled. R1 is likely in transition mode (advertising both narrow and wide metrics), so it does support wide metrics. This option is incorrect.
6. Why Load Balancing Fails
For load balancing to work in IS-IS, the total path metrics to a destination must be equal across multiple paths. If R3 doesn't support wide metrics:
* R3 ignores R2's prefixes (metric 1000) because they use wide metrics.
* R3 only sees R1's prefixes (metric 63) and builds its routing table based on narrow metrics.
* As a result, R3 doesn't see equal-cost paths involving R2's prefixes, and load balancing fails.
If R3 had wide metrics enabled, it would process both R1's and R2's prefixes, calculate the total path metrics, and potentially find equal-cost paths for load balancing.
7. Solution
To fix the issue, R3 needs to have wide metrics enabled. In Junos, this can be done with the following configuration:
set protocols isis level 2 wide-metrics-only
This ensures R3 uses wide metrics exclusively, matching R2's configuration and allowing it to process R2's prefixes with metrics like 1000. R1 is already in transition mode, so it will remain compatible.


NEW QUESTION # 44
Which two statements about the configuration shown in the exhibit are correct? (Choose two.)

  • A. This VPN connects customer sites that use different AS numbers.
  • B. This VPN connects customer sites that use the same AS number.
  • C. A Layer 2 VPN is configured.
  • D. A Layer 3 VPN is configured.

Answer: B,D


NEW QUESTION # 45
Which three mechanisms are used by Junos platforms to evaluate incoming traffic for CoS purposes? (Choose three.)

  • A. behavior aggregate classifiers
  • B. fixed classifiers
  • C. rewrite rules
  • D. multifield classifiers
  • E. traffic shapers

Answer: A,B,D


NEW QUESTION # 46
Exhibit

Click the Exhibit button-Referring to the exhibit, which two statements are correct about BGP routes on R3 that are learned from the ISP-A neighbor? (Choose two.)

  • A. The next-hop value for these routes is changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3.
  • B. All BGP attribute values must be removed before receiving the routes.
  • C. By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3.
  • D. The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3.

Answer: A,D

Explanation:
Analyzing the Exhibit
The diagram represents BGP peering between:
AS 65512 (Enterprise Network)
AS 65511 (ISP-A)
R3 and R4 are peering with ISP-A using EBGP.
R1, R2, R3, and R4 are peering within AS 65512 using IBGP.
Understanding BGP Route Behavior
Option A: "By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3." ❌ Incorrect!
EBGP behavior: When a BGP route is advertised via EBGP, the next-hop IP is changed to the router's own IP by default.
Since ISP-A is advertising routes via EBGP to R3, the next-hop is changed to ISP-A's IP.
Thus, this statement is incorrect.
Option B: "The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3." ✅ Correct!
BGP Local Preference (LOCAL_PREF) is an IBGP-only attribute.
Local Preference is NOT shared over EBGP because it is used within an AS to influence route selection.
ISP-A will not send LOCAL_PREF to R3, as R3 is in a different AS.
Thus, this statement is correct.
Option C: "All BGP attribute values must be removed before receiving the routes." ❌ Incorrect!
BGP does not remove all attributes when advertising routes. Some attributes are modified (e.g., next-hop, AS-PATH), but others (like MED, community) may be preserved.
Thus, this statement is incorrect.
Option D: "The next-hop value for these routes is changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3." ✅ Correct!
As per default EBGP behavior, the next-hop is changed when a route is advertised to an EBGP peer.
This means ISP-A changes the next-hop to its own IP before sending it to R3.
Thus, this statement is correct.
Final answer:
✅ B. The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3.
✅ D. The next-hop value for these routes is changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3.
Verification from Juniper Documentation:
Juniper BGP Configuration Guide confirms that LOCAL_PREF is not advertised over EBGP.
RFC 4271 (BGP-4) specifies that next-hop is changed by default when advertising routes via EBGP.


NEW QUESTION # 47
You are configuring a BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN across your MPLS enabled core network. In this scenario, which statement is correct?

  • A. This type of VPN only supports Ethernet interfaces when connecting to CE devices.
  • B. This type of VPN requires the support of the inet-vpn NLRI on all core BGP devices
  • C. You must use the same route-distinguiaher value on both PE devices.
  • D. You must assign a unique site number to each attached site's configuration.

Answer: B

Explanation:
BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN is a type of VPN that uses BGP to distribute VPN labels and information for Layer 2 connectivity between sites over an MPLS network. BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN requires the support of the l2vpn NLRI on all core BGP devices1. The l2vpn NLRI is a new address family that carries Layer 2 VPN information such as the VPN identifier, the attachment circuit identifier, and the route distinguisher. The l2vpn NLRI is used for both auto-discovery and signaling of Layer 2 VPNs2. In this scenario, we are configuring a BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN across an MPLS enabled core network. Therefore, we need to ensure that all core BGP devices support the l2vpn NLRI.
References: 1:
https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-l2/topics/concept/vpn-layer-2-overview.html
2:
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/mp_l2_vpns/configuration/xe-16/mp-l2-vpns-xe-16-book/vpl


NEW QUESTION # 48
......

Many people are afraid of walking out of their comfortable zones. So it is difficult for them to try new things. But you will never grow up if you reject new attempt. Now, our JN0-664 study materials can help you have a positive change. It is important for you to keep a positive mind. Our JN0-664 Study Materials can become your new attempt. It is not difficult for you. We have simplified all difficult knowledge. So you will enjoy learning our JN0-664 study materials. During your practice of our JN0-664 study materials, you will find that it is easy to make changes.

Certification JN0-664 Training: https://www.dumpsking.com/JN0-664-testking-dumps.html

P.S. Free 2025 Juniper JN0-664 dumps are available on Google Drive shared by DumpsKing: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1nv0AXgMPxCEhPOVQedmQim6Q3Wl01qHx

Report this page