Official Bank
0/96
Page
1/4
Juniper Service Provider Routing and Switching, Professional (JN0-664) - Juniper Exam Questions
Last updated on June 20, 2026
97%
Exam Compliance
96
Total Questions
1
Question
When building an interprovider VPN, you notice on the PE router that you have hidden routes which are received from your BGP peer with family inet labeled-unica3t configured.
Which parameter must you configure to solve this problem?
Which parameter must you configure to solve this problem?
Options
A
Under the family inet labeled-unicast hierarchy, add the resolve-vpn parameter.
B
Under the family inet labeled-unicast hierarchy, add the explicit null parameter.
C
Under the protocols ospf hierarchy, add the traffic-engineering parameter.
D
Under the protocols mpls hierarchy, add the traffic-engineering parameter
Discussion
(0 comments)
to join the discussion
Community Discussion
No discussions yet. Be the first to ask!
Delete Comment
Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
2
Question
Which two statements are correct regarding the PIM DR in a PIM-SM domain? (Choose two.)
Select 2
Options
A
The receiver DR sends PIM join and PIM prune messages from the receiver network toward the RP.
B
The source DR sends PIM register messages from the source network to the RP.
C
If the DR priorities match, the router with the lowest IP address is selected as the DR.
D
By default, PIM DR election is performed on point-to-point links.
Discussion
(0 comments)
to join the discussion
Community Discussion
No discussions yet. Be the first to ask!
Delete Comment
Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
3
Question
Exhibit
A network designer would like to create a summary route as shown in the exhibit, but the configuration is not working. Which three configuration changes will create a summary route? (Choose three.)
A network designer would like to create a summary route as shown in the exhibit, but the configuration is not working. Which three configuration changes will create a summary route? (Choose three.)
Select 3
Options
A
set policy—options policy-statement leak-v€ term DC—routes from route-filter
2001:db9:a:faOO::/61 exact
2001:db9:a:faOO::/61 exact
B
delete policy-options policy-statement leak-v6 term DC-routes from route-filter 2001: db9 :a: fa00
: :/6l longer
: :/6l longer
C
set policy-options policy-statement leak-v6 term DC-routes then reject
D
set protocols isis import summary-v6
E
delete protocols isis export summary-v6
Discussion
(0 comments)
to join the discussion
Community Discussion
No discussions yet. Be the first to ask!
Delete Comment
Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
4
Question
Exhibit
user@R4> show pim rps Instance: PIM.master address-family INST Holdtime Timeout Groups Group prefixes RP address Type Mode 10.1.255.2 bootstrap sparse 150 118 0 224.1.1.0/24 10.1.255.3 bootstrap sparse 150 118 2 224.1.1.0/28 user@R4> show route 10.1.255.2 inet.0: 16 destinations, 16 routes (16 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + - Active Route, - • Last Active, * - Both 10.1.255.2/32 *[IS-IS/181 00:32:27, metric 10 > to 10.1.1.2 via ge-0/0/0.0 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:13:55 user@R4> show route 10.1.255.3 inet. 0: 16 destinations, 16 routes (16 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) 10.1.255.3/32 *[IS-IS/18] 00:32:43, metric 10 inet.2: 8 destinations, 8 routes (8 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) inet.2: 8 destinations, 8 routes (8 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5| 00:14:25 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 user@R2* show protocols pim
Ip {
family inet i
priority 200;
Local 1
address 10.1.255.2;
224.1.1.0/24: Intertace all? (edit] (edit] user@R3# show protocols pin Ip i bootstrap ( bootstrap ( family inet 1
priority 210;
Local i
address 10.1.255.3;
group-ranges group-ranges i
224.1.1.0/28;
Interface all! R4 is directly connected to both RPs (R2 and R3) R4 is currently sending all ,o,ns upstream to R3 but you want all joins to go to R2 instead Referring to the exhibit, which configuration change will solve this issue?
user@R4> show pim rps Instance: PIM.master address-family INST Holdtime Timeout Groups Group prefixes RP address Type Mode 10.1.255.2 bootstrap sparse 150 118 0 224.1.1.0/24 10.1.255.3 bootstrap sparse 150 118 2 224.1.1.0/28 user@R4> show route 10.1.255.2 inet.0: 16 destinations, 16 routes (16 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + - Active Route, - • Last Active, * - Both 10.1.255.2/32 *[IS-IS/181 00:32:27, metric 10 > to 10.1.1.2 via ge-0/0/0.0 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5] 00:13:55 user@R4> show route 10.1.255.3 inet. 0: 16 destinations, 16 routes (16 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) 10.1.255.3/32 *[IS-IS/18] 00:32:43, metric 10 inet.2: 8 destinations, 8 routes (8 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) inet.2: 8 destinations, 8 routes (8 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both 0.0.0.0/0 *[Static/5| 00:14:25 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 > to 10.1.1.6 via ge-0/0/1.0 user@R2* show protocols pim
Ip {
family inet i
priority 200;
Local 1
address 10.1.255.2;
224.1.1.0/24: Intertace all? (edit] (edit] user@R3# show protocols pin Ip i bootstrap ( bootstrap ( family inet 1
priority 210;
Local i
address 10.1.255.3;
group-ranges group-ranges i
224.1.1.0/28;
Interface all! R4 is directly connected to both RPs (R2 and R3) R4 is currently sending all ,o,ns upstream to R3 but you want all joins to go to R2 instead Referring to the exhibit, which configuration change will solve this issue?
Options
A
Change the local address on R2 to be higher than R3.
B
Change the bootstrap priority on R2 to be higher than R3
C
Change the default route in inet.2 on R4 from R3 as the next hop to R2
D
Change the group-range to be more specific on R2 than R3.
Discussion
(0 comments)
to join the discussion
Community Discussion
No discussions yet. Be the first to ask!
Delete Comment
Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
5
Question
Exhibit CE-1 and CE-2 are part of a VPLS called Customer1 No connectivity exists between CE-1 and CE-2. In the process of troubleshooting, you notice PE-1 is not learning any routes for this VPLS from PE-2, and PE-2 is not learning any routes for this VPLS from PE-1.
Options
A
The instance type should be changed to I2vpn.
B
The route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2.
C
The route distinguisher must match on PE-1 and PE-2.
D
The no-tunnel-services statement should be deleted on both PEs.
Discussion
(0 comments)
to join the discussion
Community Discussion
No discussions yet. Be the first to ask!
Delete Comment
Are you sure? This action cannot be undone.
Finish Practice?
Are you sure you want to finish? This will end your practice session.