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 8

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.

Question 71

A provider network team identifies this situation: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Review root ID and cost computations
  2. Review the LSDB for the advertisement before changing forwarding entries
  3. Inspect export policy and route eligibility before moving it to another area
  4. Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles is the best implementation and troubleshooting step 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 STP root and designated port roles. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

B:

Review the LSDB for the advertisement before changing forwarding entries 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: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. the best answer here is: Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles.

C:

Inspect export policy and route eligibility before moving it to another area is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF passive-interface and export policy", but it is not the most directly supported implementation and troubleshooting step for this precise case: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. the best answer here is: Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles.

Question 72

A provider network team identifies this situation: Several routers share an Ethernet service-provider transit VLAN. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The forwarding entry maps the MAC to the actual active customer handoff
  2. DR changes only as defined by normal election or controlled topology events
  3. The segment elects appropriate DR/BDR participants and adjacent relationships
  4. The adjacency reaches Full after resolving the actual mismatch

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The segment elects appropriate DR/BDR participants and adjacent relationships is the best operational verification evidence 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 MAC-address dynamic learning. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

B:

That option concerns OSPF DR/BDR priority election. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

D:

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. Point-to-point links need a different neighbor or DR model than multi-access broadcast segments.

Question 73

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Apply appropriate OSPF interface costs and validate expected shortest paths
  2. Place interfaces in the correct OSPF area and maintain intended backbone connectivity
  3. Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors
  4. Use a service VLAN outer tag to transport distinct customer VLANs through a provider bridge

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Apply appropriate OSPF interface costs and validate expected shortest paths is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF interface metric selection", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. the best answer here is: Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors.

B:

That option concerns OSPF backbone membership. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

D:

That option concerns Provider bridging Q-in-Q. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Question 74

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Check whether the egress advertised implicit null to its upstream
  2. Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends
  3. Configure the loopback interface as passive under the proper area
  4. Compare supported hello and dead intervals and interface state

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Compare supported hello and dead intervals and interface state is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns Penultimate-hop popping. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

B:

Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends 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 core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. the best answer here is: Compare supported hello and dead intervals and interface state.

C:

That option concerns OSPF passive-interface and export policy. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Question 75

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. Which observation would MOST RELIABLY verify the intended outcome? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Peers share the approved policy but retain valid independent sessions
  2. The peers advance to Full and have consistent eligible LSDB entries
  3. One Full adjacency forms without requiring a LAN DR election
  4. Both peers exchange compatible hellos and adjacency progresses

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Both peers exchange compatible hellos and adjacency progresses is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns BGP peer-group policy inheritance. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

B:

The peers advance to Full and have consistent eligible LSDB entries is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF LSDB synchronization", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. the best answer here is: Both peers exchange compatible hellos and adjacency progresses.

C:

One Full adjacency forms without requiring a LAN DR election 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 core router sees OSPF hellos but the adjacent PE stays Down. the best answer here is: Both peers exchange compatible hellos and adjacency progresses.

Question 76

A provider network team identifies this situation: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. Which engineering decision BEST fits the stated requirement? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology
  2. Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors
  3. Interpret the 2Way and Full states according to OSPF network type and DR roles
  4. Enable LDP on intended MPLS transport interfaces and verify neighbor discovery

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Verify OSPF hello and dead interval compatibility when two interfaces fail to become neighbors is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns OSPF router-ID uniqueness. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

C:

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

D:

That option concerns LDP session discovery. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Question 77

A provider network team identifies this situation: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. Which implementation or troubleshooting step is MOST APPROPRIATE here? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. Inspect term order and matching conditions against show route receive-protocol bgp
  2. Use appropriate broadcast network settings and inspect elected roles
  3. Align timer configuration under controlled change on both ends
  4. Review the LSDB for the advertisement before changing forwarding entries

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Align timer configuration under controlled change on both ends is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That option concerns BGP inbound routing policy. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

B:

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 migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. the best answer here is: Align timer configuration under controlled change on both ends.

D:

Review the LSDB for the advertisement before changing forwarding entries 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 migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. the best answer here is: Align timer configuration under controlled change on both ends.

Question 78

A provider network team identifies this situation: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. What verification evidence MOST CLEARLY demonstrates the solution is working? Choose ONE best answer.

  1. The route resolves over the least-cost eligible topology
  2. The failure is attributed to unsupported or mismatched GR conditions
  3. The segment elects appropriate DR/BDR participants and adjacent relationships
  4. The adjacency stabilizes and dead timer refreshes as expected

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

The adjacency stabilizes and dead timer refreshes as expected is the best operational verification evidence for this Junos service-provider case: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. Technical basis: Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

Incorrect Answers

A:

The route resolves over the least-cost eligible topology is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF interface metric selection", but it is not the most directly supported operational verification evidence for this precise case: A migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. the best answer here is: The adjacency stabilizes and dead timer refreshes as expected.

B:

That option concerns Graceful restart helper coordination. Hello negotiation depends on matching key interface parameters and reachable control packets.

C:

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 migration modifies OSPF timer settings on only one side of a link. the best answer here is: The adjacency stabilizes and dead timer refreshes as expected.

Question 79

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. Which technical approach MOST DIRECTLY addresses the issue? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology
  2. Interpret the 2Way and Full states according to OSPF network type and DR roles
  3. Use MP-BGP IPv6 unicast family configuration when exchanging IPv6 NLRI between BGP peers
  4. Apply appropriate OSPF interface costs and validate expected shortest paths

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology is the best technical design or decision for this Junos service-provider case: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. Technical basis: OSPF router IDs identify LSA originators and adjacencies and must not collide.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That option concerns OSPF two-way versus full neighbors. OSPF router IDs identify LSA originators and adjacencies and must not collide.

C:

That option concerns BGP IPv6 unicast family. OSPF router IDs identify LSA originators and adjacencies and must not collide.

D:

Apply appropriate OSPF interface costs and validate expected shortest paths is relevant to the different engineering topic "OSPF interface metric selection", but it is not the most directly supported technical design or decision for this precise case: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. the best answer here is: Assign stable distinct OSPF router identifiers across the participating topology.

Question 80

A Junos service-provider engineer is reviewing this operational case: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. What specific configuration or diagnostic action BEST implements the intended response? Select ONE best answer.

  1. Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs
  2. Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends
  3. Check show ospf database then show route protocol ospf
  4. Place relevant interfaces and route processing into separate configured instances

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs is the best implementation and troubleshooting step for this Junos service-provider case: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. Technical basis: OSPF router IDs identify LSA originators and adjacencies and must not collide.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Configure a supported OSPF point-to-point interface type on both ends 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: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. the best answer here is: Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs.

C:

Check show ospf database then show route protocol ospf 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: Two new PEs advertise the same OSPF router ID and routes flap. the best answer here is: Select and configure distinct persistent router IDs.

D:

That option concerns Routing-instance isolation. OSPF router IDs identify LSA originators and adjacencies and must not collide.

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