JN0-664 Exam Dumps - Juniper JNCIP-SP Questions and Answers

IS-IS supports two levels of routing: Level 1 (intra-area) and Level 2 (interarea). An IS-IS router can be either Level 1 only, Level 2 only, or both Level 1 and Level 2. A router that is both Level 1 and Level 2 is called a Level 1-2 router. A Level 1-2 router sends separate hello messages for each level on both point-to-point and broadcast interfaces1. A point-to-point interface provides a connection between a single source and a single destination. A broadcast interface behaves as if the router is connected to a LAN.

IS-IS is a link-state routing protocol that uses the Dijkstra algorithm to compute the shortest paths between nodes in a network. The Dijkstra algorithm maintains three data structures: a tree database, a candidate database, and a link-state database (LSDB). The tree database contains the nodes that have been visited and their shortest distances from the source node. The candidate database contains the nodes that have not been visited yet and their tentative distances from the source node. The LSDB contains the topology information of the network, such as the links and their costs.

The Dijkstra algorithm works as follows:

The local router moves its own local tuples into the tree database. A tuple consists of a node ID, a distance, and a parent node ID. The local router’s tuple has a distance of zero and no parent node.

The local router moves its neighbors’ tuples into the candidate database. The neighbors’ tuples have distances equal to the costs of the links to them and parent node IDs equal to the local router’s node ID.

The local router selects the tuple with the lowest distance from the candidate database and moves it to the tree database. This tuple becomes the current node.

The local router updates the distances of the current node’s neighbors in the candidate database by adding the current node’s distance to the link costs. If a shorter distance is found, the parent node ID is also updated.

The algorithm repeats steps 3 and 4 until either the destination node is reached or the candidate database is empty.

In OSPF, routers form adjacencies by exchanging Hello packets. These packets contain several parameters that must match between OSPF neighbors to establish a successful adjacency. Key among these parameters are the Hello Interval and the Dead Interval.

Let's analyze the exhibit and the question to determine the correct course of action to ensure that R4 peers with both R1 and R2.

1. **OSPF Hello and Dead Intervals**:

- **Hello Interval**: The time in seconds between Hello packets sent out by a router. Default is usually 10 seconds for broadcast and point-to-point networks.

- **Dead Interval**: The time in seconds that a router will wait to receive a Hello packet from a neighbor before declaring the neighbor down. Default is usually four times the Hello Interval (40 seconds).

2. **Analysis of the Exhibit**:

- **R1's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R2's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R4's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 20 seconds.

From the exhibit, we can see that R4 has a Dead Interval of 20 seconds, while R1 and R2 have Dead Intervals of 40 seconds. This discrepancy prevents R4 from establishing an OSPF peering with R1.

3. **Option Analysis**:

- **A. Adjust the Priority on R1 to be lower than the Priority on R4**:

- Incorrect. The OSPF Priority is used for DR/BDR election on multi-access networks and does not impact peering issues.

- **B. Change the MTU size on R1 and R2 to be 22 bytes higher than R4's MTU size**:

- Incorrect. While MTU mismatches can prevent OSPF adjacencies, the exhibit does not indicate an MTU mismatch issue.

- **C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2**:

- Correct. Matching the Dead Interval on R4 to 40 seconds will ensure that all routers have consistent Hello and Dead Intervals, allowing OSPF adjacencies to form.

- **D. Adjust the Hello Interval on R1 and R2 to match the Hello Interval on R4**:

- While this would be a valid approach if the Hello Intervals were mismatched, the exhibit shows that the Hello Intervals are consistent (10 seconds) across all routers. Therefore, this adjustment is not necessary.

**Conclusion**:

To correct the OSPF peering issue, the Dead Interval on R4 should be adjusted to match the Dead Intervals on R1 and R2. The correct answer is:

**C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on OSPF: [OSPF Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Configuring OSPF](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/ospf-configuring.html)

In the provided exhibit, PE-1 and PE-2 are configured with LDP-signaled pseudowires to provide Layer 2 connectivity between CE-1 and CE-2. The issue is that there is no connectivity between CE-1 and CE-2. Let’s analyze the potential causes for this fault.

1. **LDP-Signaled Pseudowire (L2 Circuit) Configuration**:

- Pseudowires in MPLS networks use LDP (Label Distribution Protocol) to signal the virtual circuit (VC) labels between PE routers.

- For successful connectivity, the VC ID (Virtual Circuit Identifier) and LSPs (Label Switched Paths) between the PE routers must be correctly configured and operational.

2. **Analysis of the Exhibit**:

- The output shows the status of the L2 circuit connection on PE-1.

- The status (St) for the interface is `rmt Dn`, which indicates that the remote site (PE-2) is down or unreachable.

3. **Potential Causes**:

- **A. The VC IDs are mismatched**:

- Correct. If the VC IDs configured on PE-1 and PE-2 do not match, the L2 circuit cannot be established. Mismatched VC IDs prevent the pseudowire from forming correctly.

- **B. There is no LSP configured from PE-1 to PE-2**:

- Correct. LSPs are required for MPLS forwarding. If there is no LSP from PE-1 to PE-2, the LDP session cannot establish a path for the pseudowire. This results in the pseudowire being down.

- **C. Interface ge-0/0/0 on PE-1 is down**:

- Incorrect. The interface status is shown as `Up`, meaning the physical interface is operational.

- **D. There is no LSP configured from PE-2 to PE-1**:

- While this might seem like a potential issue, the specific problem of the remote site being down (`rmt Dn`) typically relates more directly to the forward path from PE-1 to PE-2 (i.e., no LSP from PE-1 to PE-2). Hence, the more accurate immediate cause is covered in Option B.

**Conclusion**:

Given the analysis, the correct statements describing potential causes for the fault are:

**A. The VC IDs are mismatched.**

**B. There is no LSP configured from PE-1 to PE-2.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on L2 Circuits: [Configuring Layer 2 Circuits](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer-2-circuits-configuring.html)

- MPLS Configuration Guide: [Juniper MPLS Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-overview.html)

For a Layer 3 VPN to function correctly, an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) must be established between the Provider Edge (PE) routers. The MPLS LSP is necessary for the transport of VPN traffic across the service provider's backbone network. If the MPLS LSP is not established, the PE routers cannot forward the VPN traffic properly, causing the routes to be hidden in the BGP routing table.

Here’s a breakdown of why the other options are less likely:

A. The routes use overlapping IP addresses.

Overlapping IP addresses might cause issues with route advertisement and selection, but they would not typically cause routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table.

C. There is a routing loop in the service provider backbone.

While routing loops are problematic, they would not specifically cause the routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. Routing loops would more likely result in dropped packets or increased latency.

D. Route targets are not configured.

Incorrect or missing route target configuration would prevent routes from being imported into the correct VRF, but it would not usually result in the routes being hidden. Instead, they would simply not appear in the relevant VRF.

Thus, the absence of an established MPLS LSP is the most plausible cause for the routes being hidden.

AToM (Any Transport over MPLS) is a framework that supports various Layer 2 transport types over an MPLS network core. One of the transport types supported by AToM is LDP Layer 2 circuit, which is a point-to-point Layer 2 connection that uses LDP for signaling and MPLS for forwarding. LDP Layer 2 circuit can support Layer 2 connectivity without using BGP and can be scalable and efficient by using a single MPLS LSP for multiple VPN connections. The customer can maintain all routing for their private network by using their own CE switches.

In the context of Layer 3 VPNs (L3VPN) using MPLS, the routing information for different customers (VPNs) is typically stored in separate routing tables (VRFs). When you want to verify that PE2 is receiving the VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, you need to check the appropriate VRF routing table on PE2.

1. **Option A: show route table customer-c.inet.0**

- This command displays the routing table specific to Customer C's VRF.

- Since we want to verify that PE2 has received the VPN routes for Customer C, this is the most appropriate command to use.

- It allows us to see all routes learned for Customer C's VPN.

2. **Option B: show route table bgp.l3vpn.0**

- This command displays the BGP routing table for all L3VPN routes.

- While this includes routes for Customer C, it also includes routes for all other VPNs, making it harder to isolate the specific information for Customer C.

- This command is more useful for an overall view of BGP L3VPN routes rather than for a specific customer's VRF.

3. **Option C: show route summary**

- This command provides a summary of the routes in all routing tables.

- It doesn't give detailed information about the specific routes for Customer C's VRF.

- It's useful for a high-level overview but not for verifying specific customer routes.

4. **Option D: show route table inet.0**

- This command shows the global routing table, not the VRF-specific tables.

- The global routing table doesn't contain the VPN-specific routes that are stored in the VRF tables.

- Therefore, it won't help in verifying the routes for Customer C.

**Conclusion**:

To verify that PE2 is receiving VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, the most appropriate command is to check the specific VRF routing table for Customer C. Hence, the correct answer is:

**A. show route table customer-c.inet.0**

**References**:

- Junos OS documentation on MPLS VPNs: [Junos MPLS VPNs Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-vpns.html)

- Command Reference for Routing Tables: [Junos OS Routing Tables Command Reference](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/command-summary/show-route-table.html)