cert
cert-1
cert-2

Pass Juniper JN0-650 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
JN0-650 Exam - Verified By Experts
JN0-650 Premium File

JN0-650 Premium File

$69.99
$76.99
  • Premium File 107 Questions & Answers. Last Update: Nov 08, 2026

Whats Included:

  • Latest Questions
  • 100% Accurate Answers
  • Fast Exam Updates
 
$76.99
$69.99
accept 18 downloads in the last 7 days
block-screenshots
Juniper JN0-650 Practice Test 22

Question 210

Two leaf VTEPs have underlay IP reachability but exchange no EVPN control-plane routes. Which configuration or operational step BEST meets the stated requirement?

  1. Enable compatible BGP EVPN signaling on the appropriate peers with scoped policy.
  2. Verify local MAC learning and Type2 MAC/IP route advertisement and import.
  3. Configure matching supported Ethernet segment identifier and multihoming attachments.
  4. Configure only OSPFv2 Hello packets and assume EVPN MAC advertisements are exchanged.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Enable compatible BGP EVPN signaling on the appropriate peers with scoped policy. EVPN uses MP-BGP control-plane signaling separate from ordinary IPv4 unicast reachability. The expected validation is that expected EVPN NLRI appears in the routing instance and route table.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Verify local MAC learning and Type2 MAC/IP route advertisement and import. This addresses EVPN Type2 MAC IP advertisement rather than the required BGP EVPN address-family peer negotiation decision. EVPN uses MP-BGP control-plane signaling separate from ordinary IPv4 unicast reachability.

C:

Configure matching supported Ethernet segment identifier and multihoming attachments. This addresses Ethernet segment identifier ESI consistency rather than the required BGP EVPN address-family peer negotiation decision. EVPN uses MP-BGP control-plane signaling separate from ordinary IPv4 unicast reachability.

D:

Configure only OSPFv2 Hello packets and assume EVPN MAC advertisements are exchanged. This is a risky or ineffective shortcut for BGP EVPN address-family peer negotiation. Having an IP-connected VTEP does not mean its peer negotiates EVPN NLRI.

Question 211

During an operational risk review, this situation is reported: A legacy IGMPv2 receiver cannot express a desired source-specific include list. If the underlying control is neglected, which failure would MOST directly follow?

  1. Using group-only membership can accept unwanted sources in a source-specific design.
  2. Missing OIF state yields no receiver traffic despite an upstream multicast feed.
  3. Using ASM-only membership for an SSM group prevents the intended source-specific join.
  4. Shaping above a carrier limit can shift congestion to an uncontrolled downstream point.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Using group-only membership can accept unwanted sources in a source-specific design. IGMPv3 supports source filters needed for Source Specific Multicast participation. A useful corrective investigation is to inspect IGMPv3 (S,G) membership report and associated forwarding state.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Missing OIF state yields no receiver traffic despite an upstream multicast feed. This is a Multicast routing table incoming outgoing lists failure pattern, not the primary IGMPv3 source include mode failure in this case. IGMPv3 supports source filters needed for Source Specific Multicast participation.

C:

Using ASM-only membership for an SSM group prevents the intended source-specific join. This is a SSM without rendezvous point failure pattern, not the primary IGMPv3 source include mode failure in this case. IGMPv3 supports source filters needed for Source Specific Multicast participation.

D:

Shaping above a carrier limit can shift congestion to an uncontrolled downstream point. This is a Junos egress shaping rate failure pattern, not the primary IGMPv3 source include mode failure in this case. IGMPv3 supports source filters needed for Source Specific Multicast participation.

Question 212

A business application should get a minimum share of congested WAN bandwidth. After deploying the recommended Scheduler transmit rate bandwidth allocation change, which result MOST directly verifies success?

  1. Each packet class reaches the planned output queue with expected counters.
  2. The local route table follows documented acceptance policy while LSDB visibility is understood.
  3. Packet counters show EF-marked traffic assigned to approved forwarding class and queue.
  4. Congested classes meet intended minimum shares without exceeding physical bandwidth.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Congested classes meet intended minimum shares without exceeding physical bandwidth. This is the directly observable outcome for Scheduler transmit rate bandwidth allocation. Scheduler transmit rates allocate planned bandwidth service to queues.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Each packet class reaches the planned output queue with expected counters. This validates Junos forwarding class to queue mapping but does not directly demonstrate the required Scheduler transmit rate bandwidth allocation result. Scheduler transmit rates allocate planned bandwidth service to queues.

B:

The local route table follows documented acceptance policy while LSDB visibility is understood. This validates OSPF routing policy import filtering but does not directly demonstrate the required Scheduler transmit rate bandwidth allocation result. Scheduler transmit rates allocate planned bandwidth service to queues.

C:

Packet counters show EF-marked traffic assigned to approved forwarding class and queue. This validates Junos ingress BA DSCP classifier but does not directly demonstrate the required Scheduler transmit rate bandwidth allocation result. Scheduler transmit rates allocate planned bandwidth service to queues.

Question 213

A network wants remote ASes to prefer another inbound site for its own prefix. Which configuration or operational step BEST meets the stated requirement?

  1. Apply controlled AS_PATH prepending in export policy to appropriate external neighbors.
  2. Add local-pref to a VLAN interface and assume remote AS_PATH changes automatically.
  3. Implement ordered Junos policy terms with prefix match and explicit accept or reject decisions.
  4. Set a policy-based higher local preference for preferred internal BGP paths.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Apply controlled AS_PATH prepending in export policy to appropriate external neighbors. AS_PATH prepending may influence remote inbound selection but is not guaranteed to override peer policy. The expected validation is that advertised AS_PATH contains expected local-AS repeats while primary route remains reachable.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Add local-pref to a VLAN interface and assume remote AS_PATH changes automatically. This is a risky or ineffective shortcut for BGP AS path prepend outbound advertisement. Inserting prepends into all paths can cause unexpected global traffic shifts.

C:

Implement ordered Junos policy terms with prefix match and explicit accept or reject decisions. This addresses Junos BGP policy term matching rather than the required BGP AS path prepend outbound advertisement decision. AS_PATH prepending may influence remote inbound selection but is not guaranteed to override peer policy.

D:

Set a policy-based higher local preference for preferred internal BGP paths. This addresses BGP LOCAL_PREF outbound exit selection rather than the required BGP AS path prepend outbound advertisement decision. AS_PATH prepending may influence remote inbound selection but is not guaranteed to override peer policy.

Question 214

During an operational risk review, this situation is reported: A guest portal and MAC policy compete to assign different roles to one access port. If the underlying control is neglected, which failure would MOST directly follow?

  1. Treating Access-Reject as the same failure as timeout can trigger unsafe fallback behavior.
  2. Assuming an IPv4-only classifier handles all IPv6 traffic may cause inconsistent QoS.
  3. Mixed ACLs and fallback methods can cause access failure after a valid login.
  4. An overly permissive guest VLAN becomes an alternative corporate-network entry.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Mixed ACLs and fallback methods can cause access failure after a valid login. Authentication success does not guarantee matching VLAN mapping or permitted data-plane access. A useful corrective investigation is to compare RADIUS result port authentication status VLAN mapping and interface filter counters.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Treating Access-Reject as the same failure as timeout can trigger unsafe fallback behavior. This is a RADIUS Access-Accept versus Access-Reject handling failure pattern, not the primary Multiple access control enforcement troubleshooting failure in this case. Authentication success does not guarantee matching VLAN mapping or permitted data-plane access.

B:

Assuming an IPv4-only classifier handles all IPv6 traffic may cause inconsistent QoS. This is a Junos IPv6 DSCP classifier family failure pattern, not the primary Multiple access control enforcement troubleshooting failure in this case. Authentication success does not guarantee matching VLAN mapping or permitted data-plane access.

D:

An overly permissive guest VLAN becomes an alternative corporate-network entry. This is a Guest VLAN for unauthenticated clients failure pattern, not the primary Multiple access control enforcement troubleshooting failure in this case. Authentication success does not guarantee matching VLAN mapping or permitted data-plane access.

Question 215

A switch accidentally places an unauthenticated device into the internal employee VLAN. Which technical principle BEST explains the Guest VLAN for unauthenticated clients decision?

  1. 802.1X host-mode behavior controls whether access applies per endpoint or per port.
  2. RPF uses source or RP reachability and can change when unicast routing changes.
  3. Guest VLAN authorizes limited access for eligible unauthenticated clients.
  4. Reauthentication refreshes an existing access session's policy decision.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Guest VLAN authorizes limited access for eligible unauthenticated clients. In this situation, the relevant action is to configure a restricted guest VLAN as an explicit supported fallback for selected unauthenticated devices.

Incorrect Answers

A:

802.1X host-mode behavior controls whether access applies per endpoint or per port. That principle is related to 802.1X multi-supplicant port control, not the main Guest VLAN for unauthenticated clients choice. An overly permissive guest VLAN becomes an alternative corporate-network entry.

B:

RPF uses source or RP reachability and can change when unicast routing changes. That principle is related to Multicast source route policy and RPF, not the main Guest VLAN for unauthenticated clients choice. An overly permissive guest VLAN becomes an alternative corporate-network entry.

D:

Reauthentication refreshes an existing access session's policy decision. That principle is related to 802.1X periodic reauthentication, not the main Guest VLAN for unauthenticated clients choice. An overly permissive guest VLAN becomes an alternative corporate-network entry.

Question 216

A private VLAN isolated endpoint can reach another isolated endpoint because role assignments are wrong. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Test communication matrix among each community and shared gateway.
  2. Set a VLAN name Private and assume all member ports become isolated automatically.
  3. Validate allowed gateway ping and blocked peer-to-peer Layer 2 paths.
  4. Compare configured VLAN members with dynamic MVRP state before and after a link reset.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Validate allowed gateway ping and blocked peer-to-peer Layer 2 paths. This checks whether isolated endpoints reach the intended shared gateway but not peer isolated ports.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Test communication matrix among each community and shared gateway. That check applies chiefly to Private VLAN community and promiscuous roles, not the current Private VLAN isolated port separation issue. Private VLAN isolation provides Layer 2 separation within a shared primary VLAN.

B:

Set a VLAN name Private and assume all member ports become isolated automatically. That bypass leaves the Private VLAN isolated port separation issue unresolved. Treating primary VLAN membership alone as isolation allows undesired peer traffic.

D:

Compare configured VLAN members with dynamic MVRP state before and after a link reset. That check applies chiefly to MVRP static versus dynamic registration, not the current Private VLAN isolated port separation issue. Private VLAN isolation provides Layer 2 separation within a shared primary VLAN.

Question 217

A workstation marks all backup packets as EF and consumes voice scheduling resources. After deploying the recommended QoS trust boundary at campus edge change, which result MOST directly verifies success?

  1. Captures and counters explain ingress class egress queue and final header marking.
  2. Untrusted workstation EF markings cannot steal the intended voice queue.
  3. Each VLAN shows its intended root and a loop-free active topology.
  4. Approved voice packets gain the intended forwarding class while bulk packets do not.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Untrusted workstation EF markings cannot steal the intended voice queue. This is the directly observable outcome for QoS trust boundary at campus edge. A CoS trust boundary defines whose markings should be honored.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Captures and counters explain ingress class egress queue and final header marking. This validates CoS processing order ingress to egress but does not directly demonstrate the required QoS trust boundary at campus edge result. A CoS trust boundary defines whose markings should be honored.

C:

Each VLAN shows its intended root and a loop-free active topology. This validates VSTP per-VLAN root distribution but does not directly demonstrate the required QoS trust boundary at campus edge result. A CoS trust boundary defines whose markings should be honored.

D:

Approved voice packets gain the intended forwarding class while bulk packets do not. This validates Junos multifield firewall filter classification but does not directly demonstrate the required QoS trust boundary at campus edge result. A CoS trust boundary defines whose markings should be honored.

Question 218

A RADIUS Access-Accept succeeds but the switch keeps the default guest VLAN. Which technical principle BEST explains the Dynamic VLAN assignment from RADIUS decision?

  1. Multiple authentication methods must be composed without creating a bypass path.
  2. RADIUS outcomes express AAA authorization decisions separate from transport connectivity.
  3. RADIUS authorization can assign network context after successful authentication.
  4. Root protection guards designated bridge roles against unexpected root changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

RADIUS authorization can assign network context after successful authentication. In this situation, the relevant action is to configure supported RADIUS VLAN assignment attributes and switch VLAN mappings.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Multiple authentication methods must be composed without creating a bypass path. That principle is related to 802.1X versus MAC RADIUS method priority, not the main Dynamic VLAN assignment from RADIUS choice. Successful authentication alone does not prove dynamic VLAN attributes are accepted.

B:

RADIUS outcomes express AAA authorization decisions separate from transport connectivity. That principle is related to RADIUS Access-Accept versus Access-Reject handling, not the main Dynamic VLAN assignment from RADIUS choice. Successful authentication alone does not prove dynamic VLAN attributes are accepted.

D:

Root protection guards designated bridge roles against unexpected root changes. That principle is related to Root protection on designated links, not the main Dynamic VLAN assignment from RADIUS choice. Successful authentication alone does not prove dynamic VLAN attributes are accepted.

Question 219

A link failure leaves downstream multicast state pointing at an obsolete upstream neighbor. Select TWO statements that correctly combine the PIM join prune forwarding path implementation, its evidence, or its governing principle.

  1. Verify PIM join prune messages and incoming outgoing interface lists across the chain.
  2. Add a static VLAN member on one access port and assume all upstream PIM joins exist.
  3. Select appropriate IPv6 multicast addressing and scope behavior for intended receivers.
  4. Each hop has the intended upstream join and only subscribed downstream interfaces.
  5. Troubleshoot source activity group membership RPF PIM joins and data packet counters in order.

Explanation

Correct Answers

A:

Verify PIM join prune messages and incoming outgoing interface lists across the chain. This is the intended implementation action for PIM join prune forwarding path.

D:

Each hop has the intended upstream join and only subscribed downstream interfaces. This is direct observable evidence for PIM join prune forwarding path.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Add a static VLAN member on one access port and assume all upstream PIM joins exist. This would not be an appropriate PIM join prune forwarding path decision. Missing join or stale prune state interrupts receiver delivery despite source health.

C:

Select appropriate IPv6 multicast addressing and scope behavior for intended receivers. This belongs to IPv6 multicast scope and group use, not the specified PIM join prune forwarding path operation. PIM builds and removes multicast distribution state using joins and prunes.

E:

Troubleshoot source activity group membership RPF PIM joins and data packet counters in order. This belongs to Multicast troubleshooting separate control and data planes, not the specified PIM join prune forwarding path operation. PIM builds and removes multicast distribution state using joins and prunes.

Question 220

A replacement OSPF peer stops at Exchange after previously becoming Full. Select TWO statements that correctly combine the OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow implementation, its evidence, or its governing principle.

  1. Compare Hello packets area ID intervals and neighbor states before changing interface OSPF settings.
  2. Expected adjacency relationships achieve correct state for the selected network type.
  3. Apply supported route policy at the correct Junos OSPF import or RIB-selection control.
  4. Clear every routing daemon whenever any OSPF neighbor displays Two-Way.
  5. Interpret neighbor state relative to network type and compare timers MTU and authentication.

Explanation

Correct Answers

B:

Expected adjacency relationships achieve correct state for the selected network type. This is direct observable evidence for OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow.

E:

Interpret neighbor state relative to network type and compare timers MTU and authentication. This is the intended implementation action for OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Compare Hello packets area ID intervals and neighbor states before changing interface OSPF settings. This belongs to OSPFv2 Hello and Dead timer adjacency, not the specified OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow operation. Two-Way may be normal between DROther neighbors while Exchange stuck indicates database issues.

C:

Apply supported route policy at the correct Junos OSPF import or RIB-selection control. This belongs to OSPF routing policy import filtering, not the specified OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow operation. Two-Way may be normal between DROther neighbors while Exchange stuck indicates database issues.

D:

Clear every routing daemon whenever any OSPF neighbor displays Two-Way. This would not be an appropriate OSPF neighbor state troubleshooting workflow decision. Treating every Two-Way adjacency as a fatal database synchronization failure causes unnecessary changes.

Enterprise Routing and Switching, Professional (JNCIP-ENT) (JN0-650) Practice Tests