Juniper JN0-364 Practice Test 49
Question 480
A provider network team identifies this situation: A static IPv6 route with a link-local next hop fails after an interface migration. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.
- The route resolves on the correct moved circuit
- The route becomes eligible after correcting IPv6 reachability
- IPv6 overlay packets pass when underlay transport is restored
- Accepted LSPs correspond to authenticated peers
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:The route resolves on the correct moved circuit is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A static IPv6 route with a link-local next hop fails after an interface migration. Technical basis: IPv6 fe80::/10 link-local addresses are scoped to a link and may need an interface to disambiguate identical values.
Incorrect Answers
B:The route becomes eligible after correcting IPv6 reachability is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 static route next hop", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A static IPv6 route with a link-local next hop fails after an interface migration. the best answer here is: The route resolves on the correct moved circuit.
C:IPv6 overlay packets pass when underlay transport is restored is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A static IPv6 route with a link-local next hop fails after an interface migration. the best answer here is: The route resolves on the correct moved circuit.
D:That option concerns IS-IS authentication checks. IPv6 fe80::/10 link-local addresses are scoped to a link and may need an interface to disambiguate identical values.
Question 481
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.
- Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport
- Use the outgoing interface context when resolving a link-local IPv6 next hop
- Use loop protection on an appropriate STP port to avoid unsafe forwarding when expected BPDUs disappear
- Investigate IPv6 neighbor discovery and router advertisement behavior before declaring a route failure
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
B:Use the outgoing interface context when resolving a link-local IPv6 next hop is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 link-local next-hop scope", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. the best answer here is: Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport.
C:That option concerns Loop protection when BPDUs vanish. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
D:Investigate IPv6 neighbor discovery and router advertisement behavior before declaring a route failure is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 neighbor discovery", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. the best answer here is: Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport.
Question 482
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.
- Enable OSPFv3 in the appropriate area and verify interface state
- Inspect show route table inet6.0 and IPv6 forwarding context
- Assign supported OSPF costs reflecting approved routing intent
- Configure a supported IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel with reachable underlay endpoints
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Enable OSPFv3 in the appropriate area and verify interface state is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
B:That option concerns IPv6 RIB versus FIB verification. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
C:That option concerns OSPF interface metric selection. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
D:Configure a supported IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel with reachable underlay endpoints is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. the best answer here is: Enable OSPFv3 in the appropriate area and verify interface state.
Question 483
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.
- show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor
- Traffic reaches only the neighbor on the selected link
- IPv6 packets traverse the IPv4 core through the intended tunnel
- The tunnel stays operational without recursive next-hop resolution
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
B:Traffic reaches only the neighbor on the selected link is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 link-local next-hop scope", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. the best answer here is: show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor.
C:IPv6 packets traverse the IPv4 core through the intended tunnel is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A provider backbone adds IPv6 to an OSPFv2 routed interface. the best answer here is: show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor.
D:That option concerns GRE underlay route recursion. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Question 484
A provider network team identifies this situation: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.
- Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport
- Configure IPv6 static route destinations and next hops using proper IPv6 address semantics
- Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs
- Interpret MPLS shim-label fields including label value, traffic class, bottom-of-stack and TTL
Explanation
Correct Answer
A:Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
B:Configure IPv6 static route destinations and next hops using proper IPv6 address semantics is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 static route next hop", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport.
C:Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs is relevant to the different engineering topic "IS-IS IPv6 reachability", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport.
D:That option concerns MPLS label-stack header. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Question 485
A provider network team identifies this situation: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.
- Inspect next-hop scope and assigned interface
- Compare AS_PATH sequence and local preferences of candidate routes
- Check IPv4 reachability to tunnel endpoints and tunnel interface state
- Inspect OSPFv3-specific interface, area and neighbor behavior
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Inspect OSPFv3-specific interface, area and neighbor behavior is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
A:Inspect next-hop scope and assigned interface is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 link-local next-hop scope", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: Inspect OSPFv3-specific interface, area and neighbor behavior.
B:That option concerns BGP AS-path loop prevention. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
C:Check IPv4 reachability to tunnel endpoints and tunnel interface state is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: Inspect OSPFv3-specific interface, area and neighbor behavior.
Question 486
A provider network team identifies this situation: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.
- The route becomes eligible after correcting IPv6 reachability
- The IPv6 control-plane issue is isolated without disturbing IPv4 OSPFv2
- The specific IPv6 prefix becomes visible after correcting advertisement
- Operational roles permit the intended rapid transition
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:The IPv6 control-plane issue is isolated without disturbing IPv4 OSPFv2 is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. Technical basis: OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Incorrect Answers
A:The route becomes eligible after correcting IPv6 reachability is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 static route next hop", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: The IPv6 control-plane issue is isolated without disturbing IPv4 OSPFv2.
C:The specific IPv6 prefix becomes visible after correcting advertisement is relevant to the different engineering topic "IS-IS IPv6 reachability", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An IPv6 OSPFv3 adjacency is stuck while IPv4 OSPFv2 remains Full. the best answer here is: The IPv6 control-plane issue is isolated without disturbing IPv4 OSPFv2.
D:That option concerns RSTP rapid transitions. OSPFv3 adjacencies can use IPv6 link-local addresses while advertising IPv6 reachability.
Question 487
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.
- Use MP-BGP IPv6 unicast family configuration when exchanging IPv6 NLRI between BGP peers
- Use the outgoing interface context when resolving a link-local IPv6 next hop
- Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs
- Check correct edge designation and port roles before overriding an STP blocking decision
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. Technical basis: IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Incorrect Answers
A:Use MP-BGP IPv6 unicast family configuration when exchanging IPv6 NLRI between BGP peers is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP IPv6 unicast family", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. the best answer here is: Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs.
B:That option concerns IPv6 link-local next-hop scope. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
D:That option concerns Spanning-tree troubleshooting and edge settings. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Question 488
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.
- Enable the supported IPv6 family and verify route policy
- Inspect neighbor discovery and solicited neighbor state on the VLAN
- Configure supported IPv6 routing and verify IPv6 reachability TLVs
- Review tunnel MTU and supported PMTUD handling
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Configure supported IPv6 routing and verify IPv6 reachability TLVs is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. Technical basis: IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Incorrect Answers
A:Enable the supported IPv6 family and verify route policy is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP IPv6 unicast family", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. the best answer here is: Configure supported IPv6 routing and verify IPv6 reachability TLVs.
B:Inspect neighbor discovery and solicited neighbor state on the VLAN is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 neighbor discovery", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. the best answer here is: Configure supported IPv6 routing and verify IPv6 reachability TLVs.
D:That option concerns GRE MTU and encapsulation overhead. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Question 489
A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.
- show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor
- The aggregate's operational state reflects the required active-member count
- The inet6 routing table contains expected IS-IS learned prefixes
- IPv6 packets traverse the IPv4 core through the intended tunnel
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:The inet6 routing table contains expected IS-IS learned prefixes is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. Technical basis: IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Incorrect Answers
A:Show ospf3 neighbor reports the intended Full neighbor is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPFv3 neighbor formation", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A service-provider core enables IPv6 services on an existing IS-IS topology. the best answer here is: The inet6 routing table contains expected IS-IS learned prefixes.
B:That option concerns Aggregated-Ethernet minimum links. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
D:That option concerns IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Question 490
A provider network team identifies this situation: An IPv6 customer route is absent although IS-IS system adjacency is Up. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.
- Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport
- Investigate IPv6 neighbor discovery and router advertisement behavior before declaring a route failure
- Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs
- Use VSTP only when per-VLAN spanning-tree operation is actually desired and supported
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: An IPv6 customer route is absent although IS-IS system adjacency is Up. Technical basis: IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
Incorrect Answers
A:Configure OSPFv3 on the intended IPv6-capable interface and verify link-local neighbor transport is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPFv3 neighbor formation", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An IPv6 customer route is absent although IS-IS system adjacency is Up. the best answer here is: Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs.
B:Investigate IPv6 neighbor discovery and router advertisement behavior before declaring a route failure is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6 neighbor discovery", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An IPv6 customer route is absent although IS-IS system adjacency is Up. the best answer here is: Advertise IPv6 prefixes using supported IS-IS IPv6 address-family capability and TLVs.
D:That option concerns VSTP per-VLAN tree behavior. IS-IS can carry IPv6 reachability information over its own control packets independent of OSPFv3.
