Pass Juniper JN0-364 Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. A lower MED can influence inbound selection under applicable comparison rules, but it is not universally compared across unrelated AS paths.

That option concerns BGP AS-path loop prevention. A lower MED can influence inbound selection under applicable comparison rules, but it is not universally compared across unrelated AS paths.

Control BGP route advertisements with explicit export policy and eligibility checks is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP outbound advertisement policy", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two routes from different upstream ASes have different MED values. the best answer here is: Use MED only where applicable to compare ingress suggestions from neighboring AS paths.

That option concerns IPv6 RIB versus FIB verification. A lower MED can influence inbound selection under applicable comparison rules, but it is not universally compared across unrelated AS paths.

Validate next-hop reachability and TCP connectivity before modifying policy is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP TCP session and AS negotiation", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two routes from different upstream ASes have different MED values. the best answer here is: Inspect policy and the route selection order before attributing the result to MED.

Inspect show route advertising-protocol bgp and export terms is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP outbound advertisement policy", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two routes from different upstream ASes have different MED values. the best answer here is: Inspect policy and the route selection order before attributing the result to MED.

The transport establishes and BGP progresses beyond Active is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP TCP session and AS negotiation", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: Two routes from different upstream ASes have different MED values. the best answer here is: The diagnostic report avoids unsupported cross-AS MED assumptions.

That option concerns Spanning-tree troubleshooting and edge settings. A lower MED can influence inbound selection under applicable comparison rules, but it is not universally compared across unrelated AS paths.

That option concerns IBGP route propagation constraints. A lower MED can influence inbound selection under applicable comparison rules, but it is not universally compared across unrelated AS paths.

That option concerns BGP inbound routing policy. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

That option concerns IS-IS TLV reachability advertisements. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Use local preference to express preferred outbound exit within an AS is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP local preference selection", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An iBGP peer receives an external route whose next-hop address is unreachable. the best answer here is: Verify the BGP NEXT_HOP resolves in the correct table before expecting installation.

That option concerns BGP AS-path loop prevention. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Inspect import/export policy and UPDATE advertisements is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP message processing", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An iBGP peer receives an external route whose next-hop address is unreachable. the best answer here is: Inspect route detail and ensure the authorized next-hop route exists.

That option concerns IS-IS hello adjacency negotiation. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Internal BGP selection prefers the configured primary when paths are otherwise valid is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP local preference selection", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An iBGP peer receives an external route whose next-hop address is unreachable. the best answer here is: The BGP prefix becomes eligible only when the next hop resolves.

That option concerns IS-IS Level-1/Level-2 reachability. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

The session is Established and intended NLRI appears in UPDATEs is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP message processing", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An iBGP peer receives an external route whose next-hop address is unreachable. the best answer here is: The BGP prefix becomes eligible only when the next hop resolves.

That option concerns BPDU visibility on trunks. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Interpret OPEN, UPDATE, KEEPALIVE and NOTIFICATION roles during session setup and operation is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP message processing", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A provider edge changes the eBGP handoff addressing and learned prefixes disappear. the best answer here is: Verify the BGP NEXT_HOP resolves in the correct table before expecting installation.

That option concerns BGP MED and peer comparison. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

That option concerns BGP peer-group policy inheritance. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

That option concerns MPLS label binding and retention. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Inspect local preference and candidate route attributes in the local AS is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP local preference selection", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A provider edge changes the eBGP handoff addressing and learned prefixes disappear. the best answer here is: Check next-hop attributes and IGP reachability.

That option concerns BGP TCP session and AS negotiation. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

That option concerns Integrated routing and bridging. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

That option concerns IBGP route propagation constraints. BGP routes can be validly advertised yet hidden or inactive because the advertised next hop is unresolved.

Control BGP route advertisements with explicit export policy and eligibility checks is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP outbound advertisement policy", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two peers advertise one customer prefix with different local preference and AS path lengths. the best answer here is: Apply BGP's ordered path-selection criteria rather than selecting routes by one attribute in isolation.

Configure an eBGP or iBGP peer with the correct peer AS and reachable TCP endpoint is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP TCP session and AS negotiation", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two peers advertise one customer prefix with different local preference and AS path lengths. the best answer here is: Apply BGP's ordered path-selection criteria rather than selecting routes by one attribute in isolation.

That option concerns IS-IS link-state database. BGP compares route preference, policy attributes and other path criteria in a defined sequence.

That option concerns STP root and designated port roles. BGP compares route preference, policy attributes and other path criteria in a defined sequence.

Inspect path attributes and identify the AS loop before accepting updates is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP AS-path loop prevention", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two peers advertise one customer prefix with different local preference and AS path lengths. the best answer here is: Inspect current route candidates and identify the first decisive comparison.

Apply explicit BGP export policy matching authorized active routes is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP outbound advertisement policy", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two peers advertise one customer prefix with different local preference and AS path lengths. the best answer here is: Inspect current route candidates and identify the first decisive comparison.