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 7

Question 60

A provider network team identifies this situation: A BGP candidate appears hidden after a routing-policy change. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The route is either correctly rejected or reaccepted by a focused configuration fix
  2. Forwarding changes according to configured path preference rather than random distribution
  3. The endpoint MAC is learned in the expected VLAN
  4. Distribution agrees with the supported hashing method over a representative set of flows

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

The route is either correctly rejected or reaccepted by a focused configuration fix is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A BGP candidate appears hidden after a routing-policy change. Technical basis: The routing information base can contain multiple candidate routes, but route preference, validity and import policy determine what becomes active.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Forwarding changes according to configured path preference rather than random distribution is relevant to the different engineering topic "Qualified-next-hop selection", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A BGP candidate appears hidden after a routing-policy change. the best answer here is: The route is either correctly rejected or reaccepted by a focused configuration fix.

C:

The endpoint MAC is learned in the expected VLAN is relevant to the different engineering topic "Access port VLAN membership", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A BGP candidate appears hidden after a routing-policy change. the best answer here is: The route is either correctly rejected or reaccepted by a focused configuration fix.

D:

Distribution agrees with the supported hashing method over a representative set of flows is relevant to the different engineering topic "Forwarding-table multipath", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A BGP candidate appears hidden after a routing-policy change. the best answer here is: The route is either correctly rejected or reaccepted by a focused configuration fix.

Question 61

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology
  2. Use LSA exchange and database views to distinguish neighbor formation from link-state synchronization
  3. Distinguish transport routes, MPLS forwarding entries and regular IP routing when troubleshooting
  4. Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF router-ID uniqueness", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. the best answer here is: Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity.

B:

Use LSA exchange and database views to distinguish neighbor formation from link-state synchronization is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF LSDB synchronization", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. the best answer here is: Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity.

C:

That option concerns MPLS route and forwarding tables. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Question 62

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs
  2. Review acceptable MED policy and path comparison behavior
  3. Configure the intended interface under OSPF area 0.0.0.0
  4. Inspect database description exchange and relevant mismatch counters

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Configure the intended interface under OSPF area 0.0.0.0 is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF router-ID uniqueness", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. the best answer here is: Configure the intended interface under OSPF area 0.0.0.0.

B:

That option concerns BGP MED and peer comparison. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

D:

Inspect database description exchange and relevant mismatch counters is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF LSDB synchronization", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. the best answer here is: Configure the intended interface under OSPF area 0.0.0.0.

Question 63

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Large packets traverse within the true transport MTU
  2. Another eligible router holds the DR role while the aggregation router stays DROther
  3. The core neighbor becomes adjacent and the expected OSPF prefixes appear
  4. The resulting states match the expected broadcast design

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The core neighbor becomes adjacent and the expected OSPF prefixes appear is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A service-provider core adds a new edge router to area zero. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns GRE MTU and encapsulation overhead. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

B:

That option concerns OSPF DR/BDR priority election. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

D:

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Question 64

A provider network team identifies this situation: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Create an aggregate route only when relevant contributing more-specific active routes justify the summary
  2. Use OSPF neighbor, interface, database and route views to localize control-plane or policy failures
  3. Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity
  4. Apply appropriate OSPF interface costs and validate expected shortest paths

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Aggregate-route contributor activation. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

B:

Use OSPF neighbor, interface, database and route views to localize control-plane or policy failures is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF operational troubleshooting", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. the best answer here is: Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity.

D:

That option concerns OSPF interface metric selection. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Question 65

A provider network team identifies this situation: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles
  2. Check negotiated intervals, multiplier, CPU and transport characteristics
  3. Check show ospf interface and link/IP state first
  4. Review ABR and backbone reachability before changing interface metrics

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Review ABR and backbone reachability before changing interface metrics is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF interface network type", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. the best answer here is: Review ABR and backbone reachability before changing interface metrics.

B:

That option concerns BFD rapid failure detection. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

C:

Check show ospf interface and link/IP state first is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF operational troubleshooting", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. the best answer here is: Review ABR and backbone reachability before changing interface metrics.

Question 66

A provider network team identifies this situation: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The segment elects appropriate DR/BDR participants and adjacent relationships
  2. The intended member becomes collecting/distributing after correction
  3. The adjacency stabilizes and dead timer refreshes as expected
  4. Area connectivity and interarea reachability match the agreed topology

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Area connectivity and interarea reachability match the agreed topology is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. Technical basis: OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The segment elects appropriate DR/BDR participants and adjacent relationships is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF interface network type", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A router joins a nonbackbone area and interarea routes are missing. the best answer here is: Area connectivity and interarea reachability match the agreed topology.

B:

That option concerns LAG and LACP negotiation. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

C:

That option concerns OSPF hello/dead agreement. OSPF area design constrains link-state flooding and normally requires a backbone for interarea connectivity.

Question 67

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Match the OSPF interface type to the actual link and intended neighbor model
  2. Distinguish transport routes, MPLS forwarding entries and regular IP routing when troubleshooting
  3. Use OSPF neighbor, interface, database and route views to localize control-plane or policy failures
  4. Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Match the OSPF interface type to the actual link and intended neighbor model is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. Technical basis: Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That option concerns MPLS route and forwarding tables. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

C:

That option concerns OSPF operational troubleshooting. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

D:

That option concerns OSPF backbone membership. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Question 68

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Configure supported LACP modes and consistent ae membership
  2. Inspect database description exchange and relevant mismatch counters
  3. Check the network LSA originator and attached router list
  4. Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. Technical basis: Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns LAG and LACP negotiation. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

B:

Inspect database description exchange and relevant mismatch counters is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF LSDB synchronization", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. the best answer here is: Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends.

C:

That option concerns Network-LSA type-two interpretation. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Question 69

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. The new device participates in the intended region
  2. The LSDB contains distinct router advertisements with stable origins
  3. The SPF next hop prefers the intended lower-cost path
  4. One Full adjacency forms without requiring a LAN DR election

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

One Full adjacency forms without requiring a LAN DR election is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: Two PE routers have a dedicated point-to-point Ethernet handoff. Technical basis: Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns MSTP region consistency. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

B:

That option concerns OSPF router-ID uniqueness. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

C:

That option concerns OSPF interface metric selection. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Question 70

A provider network team identifies this situation: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Interpret MPLS shim-label fields including label value, traffic class, bottom-of-stack and TTL
  2. Interpret type-one Router LSAs as router-local link information scoped to an OSPF area
  3. Advertise intended connected prefixes without forming unwanted OSPF neighbors on customer-facing interfaces
  4. Match the OSPF interface type to the actual link and intended neighbor model

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Match the OSPF interface type to the actual link and intended neighbor model is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. Technical basis: Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns MPLS label-stack header. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

B:

That option concerns Router-LSA type-one interpretation. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

C:

Advertise intended connected prefixes without forming unwanted OSPF neighbors on customer-facing interfaces is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF passive-interface and export policy", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. the best answer here is: Match the OSPF interface type to the actual link and intended neighbor model.

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