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 68

Question 670

A newly added edge router fails to learn the selected RP from its PIM domain. Which technical principle BEST explains the PIM RP discovery and bootstrap mapping decision?

  1. IPv4 multicast destination ranges are group identifiers rather than ordinary host addresses.
  2. Multifield classification can use packet fields beyond preexisting DSCP markings.
  3. Dynamic RP discovery advertises RP group associations while PIM still requires routing reachability.
  4. RP mapping and unicast RP reachability are separate multicast requirements.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

Dynamic RP discovery advertises RP group associations while PIM still requires routing reachability. In this situation, the relevant action is to configure supported dynamic RP discovery or bootstrap policies where the topology supports them.

Incorrect Answers

A:

IPv4 multicast destination ranges are group identifiers rather than ordinary host addresses. That principle is related to IPv4 multicast group address versus unicast, not the main PIM RP discovery and bootstrap mapping choice. Incorrect discovery scope or policy leaves segments with stale RP maps.

B:

Multifield classification can use packet fields beyond preexisting DSCP markings. That principle is related to Junos multifield firewall filter classification, not the main PIM RP discovery and bootstrap mapping choice. Incorrect discovery scope or policy leaves segments with stale RP maps.

D:

RP mapping and unicast RP reachability are separate multicast requirements. That principle is related to Static RP mapping group range, not the main PIM RP discovery and bootstrap mapping choice. Incorrect discovery scope or policy leaves segments with stale RP maps.

Question 671

During an operational risk review, this situation is reported: A change to one VLAN-to-MSTI map unexpectedly creates a region boundary. If the underlying control is neglected, which failure would MOST directly follow?

  1. IGMP-only interfaces do not create interrouter PIM forwarding state.
  2. Slight configuration mismatches can create independent MST regions and unexpected port states.
  3. Changing the switch IP address does not correct an endpoint access VLAN mismatch.
  4. An overly broad match can reclassify unrelated packets into the wrong broadcast domain.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Slight configuration mismatches can create independent MST regions and unexpected port states. MST region identity depends on matching region attributes including VLAN mapping digest. A useful corrective investigation is to inspect MST configuration digest region and per-instance port roles.

Incorrect Answers

A:

IGMP-only interfaces do not create interrouter PIM forwarding state. This is a PIM sparse-mode neighbor discovery failure pattern, not the primary MSTP region name revision and VLAN digest failure in this case. MST region identity depends on matching region attributes including VLAN mapping digest.

C:

Changing the switch IP address does not correct an endpoint access VLAN mismatch. This is a Ethernet access interface VLAN membership failure pattern, not the primary MSTP region name revision and VLAN digest failure in this case. MST region identity depends on matching region attributes including VLAN mapping digest.

D:

An overly broad match can reclassify unrelated packets into the wrong broadcast domain. This is a Filter-based VLAN assignment failure pattern, not the primary MSTP region name revision and VLAN digest failure in this case. MST region identity depends on matching region attributes including VLAN mapping digest.

Question 672

A BGP prefix is received but appears hidden because its next hop cannot resolve. After deploying the recommended BGP next-hop reachability hidden route change, which result MOST directly verifies success?

  1. Outgoing routes retain required communities without leaking internal-only tag values.
  2. Enterprise routers prefer approved primary exit while allowing backup on withdrawal.
  3. The BGP route becomes active after recursive next-hop resolution succeeds.
  4. Authorized user EAP exchanges complete while invalid or expired certificates are rejected.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

The BGP route becomes active after recursive next-hop resolution succeeds. This is the directly observable outcome for BGP next-hop reachability hidden route. BGP path eligibility depends on successful next-hop resolution in the routing table.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Outgoing routes retain required communities without leaking internal-only tag values. This validates BGP communities match and deletion but does not directly demonstrate the required BGP next-hop reachability hidden route result. BGP path eligibility depends on successful next-hop resolution in the routing table.

B:

Enterprise routers prefer approved primary exit while allowing backup on withdrawal. This validates BGP LOCAL_PREF outbound exit selection but does not directly demonstrate the required BGP next-hop reachability hidden route result. BGP path eligibility depends on successful next-hop resolution in the routing table.

D:

Authorized user EAP exchanges complete while invalid or expired certificates are rejected. This validates 802.1X EAP authentication credential validation but does not directly demonstrate the required BGP next-hop reachability hidden route result. BGP path eligibility depends on successful next-hop resolution in the routing table.

Question 673

One end runs PIM sparse mode while the other end enables only IGMP host joins. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Inspect (*,G) and (S,G) state and RPF interface during reception.
  2. Verify denied-group counters and successful forwarding for approved test groups.
  3. Configure only LLDP neighbors and assume PIM joins are exchanged.
  4. Check show pim neighbors interface and hello packet exchange.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Check show pim neighbors interface and hello packet exchange. This checks whether both routers see expected PIM neighbors and build join state.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect (*,G) and (S,G) state and RPF interface during reception. That check applies chiefly to ASM shared tree versus SPT switchover, not the current PIM sparse-mode neighbor discovery issue. PIM establishes multicast router adjacencies independently of host IGMP group membership.

B:

Verify denied-group counters and successful forwarding for approved test groups. That check applies chiefly to Multicast policy group scoping, not the current PIM sparse-mode neighbor discovery issue. PIM establishes multicast router adjacencies independently of host IGMP group membership.

C:

Configure only LLDP neighbors and assume PIM joins are exchanged. That bypass leaves the PIM sparse-mode neighbor discovery issue unresolved. IGMP-only interfaces do not create interrouter PIM forwarding state.

Question 674

An EVPN MAC and IP binding does not appear at a remote bridge domain. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Inspect EVPN Type2 NLRI and destination MAC forwarding entries.
  2. Trace VXLAN BUM packet source ESI and egress eligibility on both peers.
  3. Inspect elected DF status and BUM frames before and after link events.
  4. Advertise an IMET Type3 route and claim it is identical to per-host Type2 MAC reachability.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Inspect EVPN Type2 NLRI and destination MAC forwarding entries. This checks whether remote leaves install a correct MAC reachability path toward the owning VTEP.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Trace VXLAN BUM packet source ESI and egress eligibility on both peers. That check applies chiefly to EVPN multihoming split horizon loop avoidance, not the current EVPN Type2 MAC IP advertisement issue. EVPN Type2 routes advertise host MAC addresses with optional IP binding.

C:

Inspect elected DF status and BUM frames before and after link events. That check applies chiefly to EVPN designated forwarder DF for BUM, not the current EVPN Type2 MAC IP advertisement issue. EVPN Type2 routes advertise host MAC addresses with optional IP binding.

D:

Advertise an IMET Type3 route and claim it is identical to per-host Type2 MAC reachability. That bypass leaves the EVPN Type2 MAC IP advertisement issue unresolved. Missing or stale Type2 routes cause blackholing or misdirected unicast traffic.

Question 675

A private VLAN isolated endpoint can reach another isolated endpoint because role assignments are wrong. Which technical principle BEST explains the Private VLAN isolated port separation decision?

  1. Filter-based VLAN decisions can classify traffic by supported packet fields instead of fixed port membership alone.
  2. MVRP learned registrations have different lifecycle from explicitly configured static VLAN memberships.
  3. EVPN split-horizon prevents replication back toward the same multihomed Ethernet segment.
  4. Private VLAN isolation provides Layer 2 separation within a shared primary VLAN.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Private VLAN isolation provides Layer 2 separation within a shared primary VLAN. In this situation, the relevant action is to assign supported isolated secondary VLAN roles and permitted promiscuous uplink mapping.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Filter-based VLAN decisions can classify traffic by supported packet fields instead of fixed port membership alone. That principle is related to Filter-based VLAN assignment, not the main Private VLAN isolated port separation choice. Treating primary VLAN membership alone as isolation allows undesired peer traffic.

B:

MVRP learned registrations have different lifecycle from explicitly configured static VLAN memberships. That principle is related to MVRP static versus dynamic registration, not the main Private VLAN isolated port separation choice. Treating primary VLAN membership alone as isolation allows undesired peer traffic.

C:

EVPN split-horizon prevents replication back toward the same multihomed Ethernet segment. That principle is related to EVPN multihoming split horizon loop avoidance, not the main Private VLAN isolated port separation choice. Treating primary VLAN membership alone as isolation allows undesired peer traffic.

Question 676

An SSM receiver appears to depend on an ASM RP despite having a known source. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Configure an Anycast RP as a mandatory component for every SSM group.
  2. Inspect IGMPv3 membership and PIM (S,G) route with no shared-tree dependency.
  3. Inspect (*,G) and (S,G) state and RPF interface during reception.
  4. Inspect route to source show multicast route and RPF neighbor interface.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Inspect IGMPv3 membership and PIM (S,G) route with no shared-tree dependency. This checks whether (S,G) state forwards only the desired source without RP discovery for SSM.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Configure an Anycast RP as a mandatory component for every SSM group. That bypass leaves the SSM without rendezvous point issue unresolved. Using ASM-only membership for an SSM group prevents the intended source-specific join.

C:

Inspect (*,G) and (S,G) state and RPF interface during reception. That check applies chiefly to ASM shared tree versus SPT switchover, not the current SSM without rendezvous point issue. Source Specific Multicast builds source-directed trees without an ASM rendezvous point.

D:

Inspect route to source show multicast route and RPF neighbor interface. That check applies chiefly to Multicast RPF shortest reverse path check, not the current SSM without rendezvous point issue. Source Specific Multicast builds source-directed trees without an ASM rendezvous point.

Question 677

An enterprise core uses internal traffic classes but ISP handoff requires different DSCP code points. After deploying the recommended DSCP egress rewrite rules change, which result MOST directly verifies success?

  1. Outgoing packet captures show the expected DSCP values on the selected interface.
  2. Internal clients install reachable paths and forward via the intended exit router.
  3. Captures and counters explain ingress class egress queue and final header marking.
  4. Bursty traffic sees acceptable loss with controlled memory usage.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Outgoing packet captures show the expected DSCP values on the selected interface. This is the directly observable outcome for DSCP egress rewrite rules. Junos rewrite rules use internal forwarding class and PLP to set outbound header bits.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Internal clients install reachable paths and forward via the intended exit router. This validates iBGP next-hop-self on edge but does not directly demonstrate the required DSCP egress rewrite rules result. Junos rewrite rules use internal forwarding class and PLP to set outbound header bits.

C:

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 DSCP egress rewrite rules result. Junos rewrite rules use internal forwarding class and PLP to set outbound header bits.

D:

Bursty traffic sees acceptable loss with controlled memory usage. This validates Queue buffer-size allocation but does not directly demonstrate the required DSCP egress rewrite rules result. Junos rewrite rules use internal forwarding class and PLP to set outbound header bits.

Question 678

A remote switch unregisters a dynamically learned VLAN during an upstream port event. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Inspect ingress and egress double-tag format and switch VLAN translation state.
  2. Compare configured VLAN members with dynamic MVRP state before and after a link reset.
  3. Test filter counters for each rule and compare ingress classified VLAN.
  4. Rename a dynamically learned VLAN to Static and assume registration lifetime changes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Compare configured VLAN members with dynamic MVRP state before and after a link reset. This checks whether critical VLAN stays present and dynamic VLANs appear only when advertised.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Inspect ingress and egress double-tag format and switch VLAN translation state. That check applies chiefly to QinQ service VLAN outer tag, not the current MVRP static versus dynamic registration issue. MVRP learned registrations have different lifecycle from explicitly configured static VLAN memberships.

C:

Test filter counters for each rule and compare ingress classified VLAN. That check applies chiefly to Filter-based VLAN rule precedence, not the current MVRP static versus dynamic registration issue. MVRP learned registrations have different lifecycle from explicitly configured static VLAN memberships.

D:

Rename a dynamically learned VLAN to Static and assume registration lifetime changes. That bypass leaves the MVRP static versus dynamic registration issue unresolved. Assuming a learned VLAN is permanently present can break traffic after withdrawals.

Question 679

A broad ingress classifier matches unexpected bulk traffic and marks it expedited. Which next investigation or correction is MOST appropriate?

  1. Compare queue occupancy drops and latency across representative bursts.
  2. Review filter counters and packet classification for sample voice and data flows.
  3. Set all incoming traffic to expedited forwarding based solely on one switch description.
  4. Measure policer counters and packet loss at below and above configured rate.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Review filter counters and packet classification for sample voice and data flows. This checks whether approved voice packets gain the intended forwarding class while bulk packets do not.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Compare queue occupancy drops and latency across representative bursts. That check applies chiefly to Queue buffer-size allocation, not the current Junos multifield firewall filter classification issue. Multifield classification can use packet fields beyond preexisting DSCP markings.

C:

Set all incoming traffic to expedited forwarding based solely on one switch description. That bypass leaves the Junos multifield firewall filter classification issue unresolved. Overbroad classifiers permit bulk traffic to consume low-latency queues.

D:

Measure policer counters and packet loss at below and above configured rate. That check applies chiefly to Junos ingress policer rate limit, not the current Junos multifield firewall filter classification issue. Multifield classification can use packet fields beyond preexisting DSCP markings.

Question 680

A dual-homed server's access segment must be advertised across two EVPN leaf peers. After deploying the recommended EVPN Type1 Ethernet auto discovery change, which result MOST directly verifies success?

  1. Remote peers recognize Ethernet segment participation and respond to advertised withdrawals.
  2. BUM frames are not looped back to the originating Ethernet segment.
  3. Peers agree on a common Ethernet segment and relevant EVPN ES routes.
  4. Queue statistics show probabilistic early drops according to class and PLP settings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Remote peers recognize Ethernet segment participation and respond to advertised withdrawals. This is the directly observable outcome for EVPN Type1 Ethernet auto discovery. Type1 Ethernet A-D routes signal Ethernet segment reachability and support multihoming convergence.

Incorrect Answers

B:

BUM frames are not looped back to the originating Ethernet segment. This validates EVPN multihoming split horizon loop avoidance but does not directly demonstrate the required EVPN Type1 Ethernet auto discovery result. Type1 Ethernet A-D routes signal Ethernet segment reachability and support multihoming convergence.

C:

Peers agree on a common Ethernet segment and relevant EVPN ES routes. This validates Ethernet segment identifier ESI consistency but does not directly demonstrate the required EVPN Type1 Ethernet auto discovery result. Type1 Ethernet A-D routes signal Ethernet segment reachability and support multihoming convergence.

D:

Queue statistics show probabilistic early drops according to class and PLP settings. This validates RED WRED drop profile thresholds but does not directly demonstrate the required EVPN Type1 Ethernet auto discovery result. Type1 Ethernet A-D routes signal Ethernet segment reachability and support multihoming convergence.

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