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 39

Question 380

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An access switch sees intermittent loops after a new redundant uplink is connected. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Ensure a more specific underlay path to the peer exists outside the tunnel
  2. Inspect roles and path costs across both uplinks
  3. Set the intended aggregation bridge priority and inspect root ID
  4. Inspect show spanning-tree interface role, BPDU state and root identity

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Inspect show spanning-tree interface role, BPDU state and root identity is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An access switch sees intermittent loops after a new redundant uplink is connected. Technical basis: True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns GRE underlay route recursion. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

B:

That option concerns STP root and designated port roles. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

C:

That option concerns STP root bridge placement. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Question 381

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An access switch sees intermittent loops after a new redundant uplink is connected. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Each VLAN uses the appropriate elected root
  2. The duplicate path is safely blocked or protected
  3. The overlay path works after repairing the correct layer
  4. The unauthorized bridge cannot create a loop through the edge

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

The duplicate path is safely blocked or protected is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: An access switch sees intermittent loops after a new redundant uplink is connected. Technical basis: True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns VSTP per-VLAN tree behavior. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

C:

That option concerns GRE tunnel forwarding tests. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

D:

The unauthorized bridge cannot create a loop through the edge is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU protection for edge ports", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An access switch sees intermittent loops after a new redundant uplink is connected. the best answer here is: The duplicate path is safely blocked or protected.

Question 382

A provider network team identifies this situation: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Use BPDU protection at true edge ports to react to unexpected switches
  2. Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision
  3. Interpret the 2Way and Full states according to OSPF network type and DR roles
  4. Use loop protection on an appropriate STP port to avoid unsafe forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. Technical basis: True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use BPDU protection at true edge ports to react to unexpected switches is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU protection for edge ports", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. the best answer here is: Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision.

C:

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

D:

Use loop protection on an appropriate STP port to avoid unsafe forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear is relevant to the different engineering topic "Loop protection when BPDUs vanish", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. the best answer here is: Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision.

Question 383

A provider network team identifies this situation: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Inspect BPDU protection events and remove unintended bridge attachment
  2. Review higher-priority path attributes before any late tie-breakers
  3. Verify the port is genuinely host-facing before applying edge behavior
  4. Inspect loss of BPDU reception and directionality

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Verify the port is genuinely host-facing before applying edge behavior is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. Technical basis: True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect BPDU protection events and remove unintended bridge attachment is relevant to the different engineering topic "BPDU protection for edge ports", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. the best answer here is: Verify the port is genuinely host-facing before applying edge behavior.

B:

That option concerns BGP best-path selection order. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

D:

Inspect loss of BPDU reception and directionality 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: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. the best answer here is: Verify the port is genuinely host-facing before applying edge behavior.

Question 384

A provider network team identifies this situation: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The design distinguishes encapsulation from cryptographic protection
  2. Endpoint traffic begins rapidly without weakening transit loop protection
  3. Operational roles permit the intended rapid transition
  4. Normal spanning-tree recovery follows correction of the control path

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Endpoint traffic begins rapidly without weakening transit loop protection is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. Technical basis: True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns GRE encapsulation purpose. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

C:

That option concerns RSTP rapid transitions. True edge ports can transition rapidly, but transit trunks need valid loop-prevention state.

D:

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: A user access port has unnecessary forwarding delay after attaching an endpoint. the best answer here is: Endpoint traffic begins rapidly without weakening transit loop protection.

Question 385

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Apply appropriate aggregated-Ethernet minimum-link conditions before declaring a degraded bundle operational
  2. Use IGP SPF results and segment labels to validate shortest-path SR-MPLS forwarding
  3. Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths
  4. Verify that a valid label binding exists for the intended FEC before tracing a labeled path

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination. Verify the result by checking: Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Aggregated-Ethernet minimum links. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

B:

That option concerns SR-MPLS shortest-path transport. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

D:

Verify that a valid label binding exists for the intended FEC before tracing a labeled path is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label binding and retention", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. the best answer here is: Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths.

Question 386

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Configure and verify the supported prefix SID advertisements in the IGP
  2. Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination
  3. Check ingress transport resolution, transit label swap and egress disposition
  4. Configure supported GRES and synchronized configuration behavior

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination. Verify the result by checking: Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Segment-routing MPLS prefix SIDs. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

C:

Check ingress transport resolution, transit label swap and egress disposition is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS end-to-end troubleshooting", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. the best answer here is: Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination.

D:

That option concerns GRES Routing Engine failover. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

Question 387

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. The fault is isolated to a specific LSP hop or egress context
  2. The network prefix appears in the appropriate LSP and becomes eligible for route calculation
  3. Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress
  4. The last label is marked at bottom of stack and forwarding context is coherent

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Inspect the FEC and relevant label mappings for each destination. Verify the result by checking: Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The fault is isolated to a specific LSP hop or egress context is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS end-to-end troubleshooting", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. the best answer here is: Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress.

B:

That option concerns IS-IS link-state database. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

D:

The last label is marked at bottom of stack and forwarding context is coherent is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label-stack header", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A core LSR receives two destination prefixes that use different egress routers. the best answer here is: Packets enter the LSP associated with their intended egress.

Question 388

A provider network team identifies this situation: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Use the outgoing interface context when resolving a link-local IPv6 next hop
  2. Interpret MPLS shim-label fields including label value, traffic class, bottom-of-stack and TTL
  3. Verify that a valid label binding exists for the intended FEC before tracing a labeled path
  4. Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path. Verify the result by checking: The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns IPv6 link-local next-hop scope. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

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: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. the best answer here is: Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths.

C:

Verify that a valid label binding exists for the intended FEC before tracing a labeled path is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label binding and retention", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. the best answer here is: Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths.

Question 389

A provider network team identifies this situation: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path
  2. Verify route resolution to the intended LSP next hop
  3. Evaluate supported explicit-null signaling and scheduling requirements
  4. Inspect outer and inner tag handling on the QinQ service

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path. Verify the result by checking: The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Verify route resolution to the intended LSP next hop is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS route and forwarding tables", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. the best answer here is: Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path.

C:

That option concerns Penultimate-hop popping. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

D:

That option concerns Provider bridging Q-in-Q. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

Question 390

A provider network team identifies this situation: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The required downstream binding appears after repair
  2. The corrected context learns only authorized MAC addresses
  3. The forwarding path uses the configured labeled transport route
  4. The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. Technical basis: MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address. The concrete response for this case is: Review route-to-FEC association and active transport path. Verify the result by checking: The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class. An unsafe assumption to avoid is: Assume two destinations always use the same transport label because they share a physical interface.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The required downstream binding appears after repair is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS label binding and retention", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. the best answer here is: The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class.

B:

That option concerns Virtual-switch routing instance. MPLS labels represent FEC forwarding decisions; a label is not merely a replacement IPv4 address.

C:

The forwarding path uses the configured labeled transport route is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS route and forwarding tables", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An edge router sends a new prefix using the wrong labeled next hop. the best answer here is: The prefix resolves to the expected labeled forwarding class.

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