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 44

Question 430

A provider network team identifies this situation: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Choose VLAN tag translation when the service needs intentional replacement of an 802.1Q tag
  2. Recognize ingress push, transit swap and egress pop actions along a label-switched path
  3. Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops
  4. Use LDP-IGP synchronization where premature use of a labeled link could blackhole traffic

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Use LDP-IGP synchronization where premature use of a labeled link could blackhole traffic is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. Technical basis: LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns VLAN translation distinction. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

B:

That option concerns MPLS push swap pop forwarding. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

C:

Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSVP explicit-route constraints", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. the best answer here is: Use LDP-IGP synchronization where premature use of a labeled link could blackhole traffic.

Question 431

A provider network team identifies this situation: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Review RSVP interface enablement and path admission requirements
  2. Compare inet6 route preference with actual forwarding next hops
  3. Inspect sync status and relevant neighbor state
  4. Compare the observed labels with configured service encapsulation

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Inspect sync status and relevant neighbor state is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. Technical basis: LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Review RSVP interface enablement and path admission requirements is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSVP session and state troubleshooting", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. the best answer here is: Inspect sync status and relevant neighbor state.

B:

That option concerns IPv6 RIB versus FIB verification. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

D:

That option concerns MPLS label-stack header. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

Question 432

A provider network team identifies this situation: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The cause of negotiation failure is identified without random timer changes
  2. The forwarding path uses the configured labeled transport route
  3. The metric normalizes when the required label readiness is confirmed
  4. The required downstream binding appears after repair

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The metric normalizes when the required label readiness is confirmed is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A core link remains at a high IGP metric after the LDP session comes up. Technical basis: LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns BGP message processing. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

B:

That option concerns MPLS route and forwarding tables. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

D:

That option concerns MPLS label binding and retention. LDP-IGP sync can delay preferable IGP forwarding until the required label distribution is ready.

Question 433

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Distinguish transport routes, MPLS forwarding entries and regular IP routing when troubleshooting
  2. Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path
  3. Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths
  4. Use graceful Routing Engine switchover where supported to preserve forwarding across a control-plane transition

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns MPLS route and forwarding tables. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

C:

Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS forwarding-equivalence classes", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. the best answer here is: Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path.

D:

That option concerns GRES Routing Engine failover. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Question 434

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Use appropriate edge BPDU protection on that designated host port
  2. Configure and verify the supported prefix SID advertisements in the IGP
  3. Enable suitable MPLS/RSVP interfaces and define the ingress LSP destination
  4. Inspect show rsvp session and RSVP signaling error detail

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Enable suitable MPLS/RSVP interfaces and define the ingress LSP destination is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns BPDU protection for edge ports. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

B:

Configure and verify the supported prefix SID advertisements in the IGP is relevant to the different engineering topic "Segment-routing MPLS prefix SIDs", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. the best answer here is: Enable suitable MPLS/RSVP interfaces and define the ingress LSP destination.

D:

That option concerns RSVP session and state troubleshooting. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Question 435

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. The established LSP follows the intended allowed nodes
  2. One Full adjacency forms without requiring a LAN DR election
  3. The expected neighbor reaches an operational label-distribution session
  4. An RSVP session and operational MPLS LSP become visible

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

An RSVP session and operational MPLS LSP become visible is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The established LSP follows the intended allowed nodes is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSVP explicit-route constraints", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. the best answer here is: An RSVP session and operational MPLS LSP become visible.

B:

That option concerns OSPF interface network type. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

C:

The expected neighbor reaches an operational label-distribution session is relevant to the different engineering topic "LDP session discovery", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A PE must build an RSVP-signaled transport LSP to a remote loopback. the best answer here is: An RSVP session and operational MPLS LSP become visible.

Question 436

A provider network team identifies this situation: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path
  2. Use LDP-IGP synchronization where premature use of a labeled link could blackhole traffic
  3. Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported
  4. Relate a Segment Routing prefix SID to an IGP-advertised prefix and the router's supported label behavior

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That option concerns LDP-IGP synchronization. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

C:

That option concerns VSTP per-VLAN tree behavior. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

D:

Relate a Segment Routing prefix SID to an IGP-advertised prefix and the router's supported label behavior is relevant to the different engineering topic "Segment-routing MPLS prefix SIDs", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. the best answer here is: Use MPLS and RSVP configuration together to create a supported signaled label-switched path.

Question 437

A provider network team identifies this situation: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Compare the observed labels with configured service encapsulation
  2. Inspect supported capability TLVs in neighbor LSPs
  3. Check the transport addresses and route to the neighbor's LDP identifier
  4. Inspect RSVP session status and per-hop signaling errors

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Inspect RSVP session status and per-hop signaling errors is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. the best answer here is: Inspect RSVP session status and per-hop signaling errors.

B:

That option concerns IS-IS TLV reachability advertisements. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

C:

Check the transport addresses and route to the neighbor's LDP identifier is relevant to the different engineering topic "LDP session discovery", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. the best answer here is: Inspect RSVP session status and per-hop signaling errors.

Question 438

A provider network team identifies this situation: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The chosen IPv6 path is explained by installed route state
  2. The label is swapped or popped as appropriate to the FEC stage
  3. The diagnosed signaling fault is corrected without changing unrelated customer routing
  4. The signaling result identifies the unsatisfied explicit constraint

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The diagnosed signaling fault is corrected without changing unrelated customer routing is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. Technical basis: RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns IPv6 RIB versus FIB verification. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

B:

That option concerns MPLS push swap pop forwarding. RSVP-TE signaling establishes state for a configured MPLS LSP and depends on enabled transport interfaces.

D:

The signaling result identifies the unsatisfied explicit constraint is relevant to the different engineering topic "RSVP explicit-route constraints", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An RSVP LSP remains Down while the IP path to its endpoint works. the best answer here is: The diagnosed signaling fault is corrected without changing unrelated customer routing.

Question 439

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Recognize ingress push, transit swap and egress pop actions along a label-switched path
  2. Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors
  3. Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths
  4. Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. Technical basis: RSVP-TE can use explicit route objects and constraints, so a viable IGP shortest path alone does not prove a constrained LSP can establish.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Recognize ingress push, transit swap and egress pop actions along a label-switched path is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS push swap pop forwarding", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. the best answer here is: Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops.

B:

That option concerns OSPF hello/dead agreement. RSVP-TE can use explicit route objects and constraints, so a viable IGP shortest path alone does not prove a constrained LSP can establish.

C:

Identify the forwarding equivalence class used to map network traffic to label-switched paths is relevant to the different engineering topic "MPLS forwarding-equivalence classes", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. the best answer here is: Check explicit-path constraints when engineering RSVP LSP routing through particular core hops.

Question 440

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Configure a supported explicit path around the restricted hop
  2. Identify outer transport and inner service label positions and the S-bit placement
  3. Enable and verify an eligible Level-2 adjacency
  4. Inspect IGP cost change and installed SR forwarding route

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Configure a supported explicit path around the restricted hop is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. Technical basis: RSVP-TE can use explicit route objects and constraints, so a viable IGP shortest path alone does not prove a constrained LSP can establish.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Identify outer transport and inner service label positions and the S-bit placement 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: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. the best answer here is: Configure a supported explicit path around the restricted hop.

C:

That option concerns IS-IS Level-1/Level-2 reachability. RSVP-TE can use explicit route objects and constraints, so a viable IGP shortest path alone does not prove a constrained LSP can establish.

D:

Inspect IGP cost change and installed SR forwarding route is relevant to the different engineering topic "SR-MPLS shortest-path transport", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An RSVP tunnel must avoid a core link under maintenance. the best answer here is: Configure a supported explicit path around the restricted hop.

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