JN0-637 Exam Dumps - Juniper JNCIP-SEC Questions and Answers

==========

Aggressive mode is required when an IP address is dynamically assigned, such as through DHCP, as it allows for faster establishment with less identity verification. More details are available in Juniper IKE and IPsec Configuration Guide.

The configuration shown in the exhibit highlights that the RemoteSite1 SRX Series device is using DHCP to obtain an IP address for its external interface (ge-0/0/2). This introduces a challenge in IPsec VPN configurations when the public IP address of the remote site is not static, as is the case here.

Aggressive mode in IKE (Internet Key Exchange) is designed for situations where one or both peers have dynamically assigned IP addresses. In this scenario, aggressive mode allows the devices to exchange identifying information, such as hostnames, rather than relying on static IP addresses, which is necessary when the remote peer (RemoteSite1) has a dynamic IP from DHCP.

Correct Action (D): Changing the IKE policy mode to aggressive will resolve the issue by allowing the two devices to establish the VPN even though one of them is using DHCP. In aggressive mode, the initiator can present its identity (hostname) during the initial handshake, enabling the VPN to be established successfully.

Incorrect Options:

Option A: Changing the external interface to st0.0 is incorrect because the st0 interface is used for the tunnel interface, not for the IKE negotiation.

Option B: Changing to IKE version 2 would not resolve the dynamic IP issue directly, and IKEv1 works in this scenario.

Option C: Changing the IKE proposal set to basic doesn't address the dynamic IP challenge in this scenario.

Juniper References:

Juniper IKE and VPN Documentation: Provides details on when to use aggressive mode, especially when a dynamic IP address is involved.

==========

In the exhibit, the CoS-based VPN configuration is not functioning correctly due to an issue with the number of forwarding classes. The maximum number of forwarding classes supported for CoS-based VPNs with multiple SAs (security associations) is typically four forwarding classes. In this case, more than four forwarding classes are defined.

To solve the issue, one forwarding class must be deleted to ensure that the total number of forwarding classes is reduced to four or fewer.