Pass Juniper JN0-364 Exam in First Attempt Guaranteed!

Only the intended IPv6 prefixes are exchanged after correction is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP IPv6 unicast family", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A provider PE has an IPv6 route but no packets return over the directly attached segment. the best answer here is: Neighbor resolution becomes valid and bidirectional packets return.

That option concerns OSPFv3 neighbor formation, not the requirement in this case.

That option concerns Penultimate-hop popping. ICMPv6 Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement resolve local neighbor link-layer reachability and depend on link-local scope.

That option concerns GRE MTU and encapsulation overhead. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

Use an explicit IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel where a legacy underlay cannot natively forward IPv6 is relevant to the different engineering topic "IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel migration", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: An ISP router forwards IPv4 but drops IPv6 toward the same neighboring PE. the best answer here is: Verify inet6 route installation and forwarding state separately from IPv4 RIB routes.

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 ISP router forwards IPv4 but drops IPv6 toward the same neighboring PE. the best answer here is: Verify inet6 route installation and forwarding state separately from IPv4 RIB routes.

That option concerns IPv6 link-local next-hop scope. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

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: An ISP router forwards IPv4 but drops IPv6 toward the same neighboring PE. the best answer here is: Inspect show route table inet6.0 and IPv6 forwarding context.

That option concerns Router-LSA type-one interpretation. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

That option concerns BGP route-troubleshooting CLI. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

The inet6 routing table contains expected IS-IS learned prefixes 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 ISP router forwards IPv4 but drops IPv6 toward the same neighboring PE. the best answer here is: The intended IPv6 next hop and active route are present.

Authorized inet6 BGP prefixes are received and installed is relevant to the different engineering topic "BGP IPv6 unicast family", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: An ISP router forwards IPv4 but drops IPv6 toward the same neighboring PE. the best answer here is: The intended IPv6 next hop and active route are present.

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 OSPFv3 prefix appears in control plane but traffic uses an alternate path. the best answer here is: Verify inet6 route installation and forwarding state separately from IPv4 RIB routes.

That option concerns OSPF interface metric selection. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

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 OSPFv3 prefix appears in control plane but traffic uses an alternate path. the best answer here is: Verify inet6 route installation and forwarding state separately from IPv4 RIB routes.

Inspect negotiated families and IPv6-specific import/export 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: An OSPFv3 prefix appears in control plane but traffic uses an alternate path. the best answer here is: Compare inet6 route preference with actual forwarding next hops.

That option concerns Segment-routing MPLS prefix SIDs. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

That option concerns IPv6 static route next hop. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

That option concerns BFD rapid failure detection. Junos uses inet6-specific routing information for IPv6 while IPv4 inet.0 reachability does not prove IPv6 service.

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 OSPFv3 prefix appears in control plane but traffic uses an alternate path. the best answer here is: The chosen IPv6 path is explained by installed route state.

The IPv6 control-plane issue is isolated without disturbing IPv4 OSPFv2 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: An OSPFv3 prefix appears in control plane but traffic uses an alternate path. the best answer here is: The chosen IPv6 path is explained by installed route state.

Test both overlay reachability and underlay encapsulated packet delivery during troubleshooting is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE tunnel forwarding tests", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.

Validate security and protocol support before selecting GRE for a service-provider application is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE protocol and security limitations", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.

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 service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.

That option concerns RSVP LSP signaling. GRE adds encapsulation but does not provide confidentiality or integrity as an encryption service by itself.

Inspect tunnel interface, encapsulation routes and return route availability is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE tunnel forwarding tests", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: Configure a supported GRE tunnel and ensure proper underlay endpoints.

That option concerns GRE source and destination addressing. GRE adds encapsulation but does not provide confidentiality or integrity as an encryption service by itself.

That option concerns RSVP explicit-route constraints. GRE adds encapsulation but does not provide confidentiality or integrity as an encryption service by itself.

The tunnel stays operational without recursive next-hop resolution is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE underlay route recursion", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: The intended overlay packets appear within GRE encapsulation.

Large packets traverse within the true transport MTU is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE MTU and encapsulation overhead", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A service provider needs to transport a routing lab's packets across an IP-only network. the best answer here is: The intended overlay packets appear within GRE encapsulation.

Keep GRE underlay reachability independent of overlay routes to avoid recursive routing loops is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE underlay route recursion", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A customer assumes traffic inside GRE is cryptographically hidden from transit observers. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.

Account for added GRE and outer IP header overhead when sizing tunneled traffic is relevant to the different engineering topic "GRE MTU and encapsulation overhead", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A customer assumes traffic inside GRE is cryptographically hidden from transit observers. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.

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 customer assumes traffic inside GRE is cryptographically hidden from transit observers. the best answer here is: Use GRE to carry supported network payload protocols across a reachable IP underlay.