cert
cert-1
cert-2

Pass Juniper JN0-364 Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

Get 100% Latest Exam Questions, Accurate & Verified Answers to Pass the Actual Exam!
30 Days Free Updates, Instant Download!

cert-5
cert-6
JN0-364 Exam - Verified By Experts
JN0-364 Premium File

JN0-364 Premium File

$69.99
$76.99
  • Premium File 69 Questions & Answers. Last Update: Nov 06, 2026

Whats Included:

  • Latest Questions
  • 100% Accurate Answers
  • Fast Exam Updates
 
$76.99
$69.99
accept 11 downloads in the last 7 days
block-screenshots
Juniper JN0-364 Practice Test 36

Question 350

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Review acceptable MED policy and path comparison behavior
  2. Inspect BPDU counters and filtering on participating ports
  3. Apply supported loop protection at the appropriate role
  4. Compare region name, revision and VLAN mapping

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Compare region name, revision and VLAN mapping is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. Technical basis: MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns BGP MED and peer comparison. MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

B:

Inspect BPDU counters and filtering on participating ports is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU visibility on trunks", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. the best answer here is: Compare region name, revision and VLAN mapping.

C:

Apply supported loop protection at the appropriate role is relevant to the different engineering topic "Loop protection when BPDUs vanish", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. the best answer here is: Compare region name, revision and VLAN mapping.

Question 351

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. The suspect link remains guarded rather than creating a bridge loop
  2. The new device participates in the intended region
  3. The alternate path transitions appropriately when the active link fails
  4. The diagnosis distinguishes LSA absence from route preference or installation

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The new device participates in the intended region is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. Technical basis: MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The suspect link remains guarded rather than creating a bridge loop is relevant to the different engineering topic "Loop protection when BPDUs vanish", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. the best answer here is: The new device participates in the intended region.

C:

The alternate path transitions appropriately when the active link fails is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSTP rapid transitions", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An enterprise adds a switch that unexpectedly appears at an MST region boundary. the best answer here is: The new device participates in the intended region.

D:

That option concerns OSPF operational troubleshooting. MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Question 352

A provider network team identifies this situation: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches
  2. Interpret MPLS shim-label fields including label value, traffic class, bottom-of-stack and TTL
  3. Use RSTP's rapid convergence mechanisms for supported point-to-point and edge roles
  4. Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. Technical basis: MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Interpret MPLS shim-label fields including label value, traffic class, bottom-of-stack and TTL is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label-stack header", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches.

C:

Use RSTP's rapid convergence mechanisms for supported point-to-point and edge roles is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSTP rapid transitions", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches.

D:

Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision is relevant to the different engineering topic "Spanning-tree troubleshooting and edge settings", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches.

Question 353

A provider network team identifies this situation: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Inspect received superior BPDUs and verify the correct boundary role
  2. Compare the observed labels with configured service encapsulation
  3. Check port type, edge settings and neighbor protocol compatibility
  4. Set consistent instance mappings and per-instance root priorities

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Set consistent instance mappings and per-instance root priorities is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. Technical basis: MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Root protection policy. MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

B:

Compare the observed labels with configured service encapsulation is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label-stack header", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Set consistent instance mappings and per-instance root priorities.

C:

Check port type, edge settings and neighbor protocol compatibility is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSTP rapid transitions", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Set consistent instance mappings and per-instance root priorities.

Question 354

A provider network team identifies this situation: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Each VLAN group follows its intended MSTI tree
  2. Normal spanning-tree recovery follows correction of the control path
  3. Endpoint traffic begins rapidly without weakening transit loop protection
  4. The actual label behavior matches the configured requested mode

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Each VLAN group follows its intended MSTI tree is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. Technical basis: MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Normal spanning-tree recovery follows correction of the control path is relevant to the different engineering topic "Loop protection when BPDUs vanish", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Each VLAN group follows its intended MSTI tree.

C:

Endpoint traffic begins rapidly without weakening transit loop protection is relevant to the different engineering topic "Spanning-tree troubleshooting and edge settings", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: Two campus VLAN groups need separate spanning-tree roots through the same infrastructure. the best answer here is: Each VLAN group follows its intended MSTI tree.

D:

That option concerns Penultimate-hop popping. MSTP maps VLANs to shared spanning-tree instances within a consistent region and digest.

Question 355

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported
  2. Plan bridge priority so the intended resilient aggregation switch is root for a spanning-tree topology
  3. Keep GRE underlay reachability independent of overlay routes to avoid recursive routing loops
  4. Use root protection to prevent an unintended downstream bridge from becoming STP root

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Plan bridge priority so the intended resilient aggregation switch is root for a spanning-tree topology is relevant to the different engineering topic "STP root bridge placement", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. the best answer here is: Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported.

C:

That option concerns GRE underlay route recursion. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

D:

Use root protection to prevent an unintended downstream bridge from becoming STP root is relevant to the different engineering topic "Root protection policy", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. the best answer here is: Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported.

Question 356

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Configure per-VLAN spanning tree and intended priorities
  2. Enable supported root protection at the customer-facing designated boundary
  3. Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs
  4. Enable supported RSTP and verify the correct point-to-point role handling

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Configure per-VLAN spanning tree and intended priorities is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Enable supported root protection at the customer-facing designated boundary is relevant to the different engineering topic "Root protection policy", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. the best answer here is: Configure per-VLAN spanning tree and intended priorities.

C:

That option concerns OSPF router-ID uniqueness. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

D:

That option concerns RSTP rapid transitions. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Question 357

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Each VLAN uses the appropriate elected root
  2. The new device participates in the intended region
  3. The designed core bridge is elected root
  4. Both eligible member links appear active in show lacp interfaces

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Each VLAN uses the appropriate elected root is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The new device participates in the intended region is relevant to the different engineering topic "MSTP region consistency", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. the best answer here is: Each VLAN uses the appropriate elected root.

C:

The designed core bridge is elected root is relevant to the different engineering topic "STP root bridge placement", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: Two service VLANs need different root bridges for capacity design. the best answer here is: Each VLAN uses the appropriate elected root.

D:

That option concerns LAG and LACP negotiation. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Question 358

A provider network team identifies this situation: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors
  2. Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported
  3. Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches
  4. Use BPDU protection at true edge ports to react to unexpected switches

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns OSPF hello/dead agreement. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

C:

Ensure MSTP region name, revision and VLAN-to-instance mapping agree across the intended switches is relevant to the different engineering topic "MSTP region consistency", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. the best answer here is: Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported.

D:

That option concerns BPDU protection for edge ports. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Question 359

A provider network team identifies this situation: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Verify the port is genuinely host-facing before applying edge behavior
  2. Confirm the address context and any explicitly configured martian exceptions
  3. Investigate BPDU reception and link failure protection before forcing ports forwarding
  4. Inspect show spanning-tree bridge and interface for that VLAN

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Inspect show spanning-tree bridge and interface for that VLAN is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Spanning-tree troubleshooting and edge settings. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

B:

That option concerns Martian-prefix handling. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

C:

Investigate BPDU reception and link failure protection before forcing ports forwarding is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU visibility on trunks", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. the best answer here is: Inspect show spanning-tree bridge and interface for that VLAN.

Question 360

A provider network team identifies this situation: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The spare remains a nonroot participant
  2. The topology remains loop-free after correcting control reception
  3. Only the intended VLAN's root and port roles change
  4. The route is copied only to the tables selected by the group and policy

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Only the intended VLAN's root and port roles change is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. Technical basis: VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The spare remains a nonroot participant is relevant to the different engineering topic "STP root bridge placement", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. the best answer here is: Only the intended VLAN's root and port roles change.

B:

The topology remains loop-free after correcting control reception is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU visibility on trunks", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A VLAN's topology changes after a VSTP configuration edit. the best answer here is: Only the intended VLAN's root and port roles change.

D:

That option concerns RIB-group route sharing. VSTP runs a separate spanning-tree context for VLANs, unlike MSTP's grouped-instance approach.

Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) (JN0-364) Practice Tests