Free JN0-664 Juniper Updates

In the context of Ethernet VPN (EVPN) and the behavior described in the exhibit, it's essential to understand the different EVPN route types and their specific functionalities. Here, CE-2 is receiving unicast traffic on both of its multihomed links to PE-2 and PE-3, but broadcast traffic is received only on one of these links.

**Explanation of EVPN Route Types**:

1. **Type 1 (Ethernet Auto-Discovery Routes)**:

- These routes are used for auto-discovery of Ethernet segments and for advertising VLAN membership.

- They do not directly influence the behavior described in the question.

2. **Type 2 (MAC/IP Advertisement Routes)**:

- These routes are used to advertise MAC addresses and IP-to-MAC bindings within the EVPN.

- They handle unicast traffic forwarding and are crucial for populating the MAC address tables on the PE devices.

- While important, they do not explain the selective broadcast behavior.

3. **Type 3 (Inclusive Multicast Ethernet Tag Routes)**:

- These routes are used to build multicast distribution trees for delivering broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic.

- They ensure that BUM traffic is sent only once per Ethernet segment, preventing duplicate frames from being sent to multihomed CEs.

- This aligns with the behavior described where CE-2 receives broadcast traffic on only one link to prevent duplication.

4. **Type 4 (Ethernet Segment Routes)**:

- These routes are used to advertise the presence of an Ethernet segment and are crucial for Designated Forwarder (DF) election processes in multihoming scenarios.

- While relevant to multihoming, they are not directly responsible for the selective broadcast behavior.

**Conclusion**:

The behavior described, where CE-2 receives broadcast traffic on only one of its multihomed links, is controlled by Type 3 routes. These routes are specifically designed to handle inclusive multicast and broadcast traffic efficiently in EVPN environments, ensuring that such traffic is not duplicated across multiple links to the same CE.

**References**:

- Juniper Networks EVPN Documentation: [EVPN Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/evpn-overview.html)

- RFC 7432, BGP MPLS-Based Ethernet VPN: [RFC 7432](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7432) provides detailed descriptions of EVPN route types and their functions.

- Junos OS EVPN Configuration Guide: [Junos OS EVPN Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/evpn.html)

The problem in this scenario is that CE-1 is configured with an incorrect peer AS number for its BGP session with PE-1. The CLI output shows that CE-1 is using AS 65531 as its local AS number and AS 65530 as its peer AS number. However, PE-1 is using AS 65530 as its local AS number and AS 65531 as its peer AS number. This causes a mismatch in the BGP OPEN messages and prevents the BGP session from being established. To solve this problem, CE-1 should configure its peer AS number as 65530 under [edit protocols bgp group external] hierarchy level.

The problem in this scenario is that R1 and R8 are not receiving each other’s routes because of private AS numbers in the AS path. Private AS numbers are not globally unique and are not advertised to external BGP peers. To solve this problem, you need to do the following:

Configure loops on routers in AS 65412 and advertise-peer-as on routers in AS 64498. This allows R5 and R6 to advertise their own AS number (65412) instead of their peer’s AS number (64498) when sending updates to R7 and R8. This prevents a loop detection issue that would cause R7 and R8 to reject the routes from R5 and R62.

Configure remove-private on advertisements from AS 64497 toward AS 64498 and from AS 64500 toward AS 64499. This removes any private AS numbers from the AS path before sending updates to external BGP peers. This allows R2 and R3 to receive the routes from R1 and R4, respectively3.

Class of Service (CoS) in networking is used to manage traffic by classifying, scheduling, and sometimes modifying packets to ensure network performance and Quality of Service (QoS). Different CoS components are used to achieve these goals. Let's analyze each option to determine which CoS component allows you to alter class-of-service values on the outbound interface of an edge router.

1. **Output Policer**:

- Policing is used to control the rate of traffic sent to or from a network interface. It can drop or remark traffic that exceeds a certain rate.

- Policing is not typically used to alter CoS values but to enforce traffic limits.

2. **Scheduler**:

- A scheduler is responsible for managing the order in which packets are transmitted out of an interface based on their CoS markings. It can allocate bandwidth and prioritize traffic.

- The scheduler manages how packets are queued and sent but does not alter the CoS values of packets.

3. **Rewrite Rules**:

- Rewrite rules are used to modify the CoS values of packets, such as DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point) or 802.1p bits, as they exit an interface.

- Rewrite rules can alter the class-of-service values in the packet headers to match the desired policies of the outbound interface.

- Therefore, rewrite rules are the correct component for altering CoS values on an outbound interface.

4. **Forwarding Classes**:

- Forwarding classes are used to categorize packets into different traffic classes within a router for QoS handling.

- They help in defining how packets should be treated by the scheduler but do not directly modify the CoS values.

**Conclusion**:

To alter class-of-service values in packets on the outbound interface of an edge router, the correct CoS component to use is:

**C. rewrite rules**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on CoS: [Class of Service Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/class-of-service-overview.html)

- Junos OS CoS Configuration Guide: [Rewrite Rules](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/class-of-service-rewrite-rules.html)