At ValidExamDumps, we consistently monitor updates to the Juniper JN0-664 exam questions by Juniper. Whenever our team identifies changes in the exam questions,exam objectives, exam focus areas or in exam requirements, We immediately update our exam questions for both PDF and online practice exams. This commitment ensures our customers always have access to the most current and accurate questions. By preparing with these actual questions, our customers can successfully pass the Juniper Service Provider Routing and Switching, Professional Exam exam on their first attempt without needing additional materials or study guides.
Other certification materials providers often include outdated or removed questions by Juniper in their Juniper JN0-664 exam. These outdated questions lead to customers failing their Juniper Service Provider Routing and Switching, Professional Exam exam. In contrast, we ensure our questions bank includes only precise and up-to-date questions, guaranteeing their presence in your actual exam. Our main priority is your success in the Juniper JN0-664 exam, not profiting from selling obsolete exam questions in PDF or Online Practice Test.
You are using a Layer 3 VPN to connect two customer sites. The VPN routes for the customer networks appear as hidden in the bgp. 13vpn. o routing table on the PE routers.
What is causing this problem?
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.
Refer to the exhibit.
Click the Exhibit button.
PE-1 and PE-2 are configured with LDP-signaled pseudowires to provide connectivity between CE-1 and CE-2. You notice no connectivity exists between CE-1 and CE-2.
Referring to the exhibit, which two statements describe potential causes for this fault? (Choose two.)
Exhibit
Referring to the exhibit, which statement is correct?
In the exhibit, we see two VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instances, CE-1 and CE-2, configured on a Juniper router. Each VRF is associated with a route-distinguisher (RD) and a vrf-target value.
Understanding the Role of vrf-target
The vrf-target is used to define Route Targets (RT), which control the import and export of VPN routes in MPLS Layer 3 VPNs (L3VPNs).
If two VRFs share the same RT, they will import each other's routes, allowing communication between them.
In this case, both VRFs have the same vrf-target:
vrf-target target:65512:100;
Since both CE-1 and CE-2 have the same RT (65512:100), they will import and export each other's routes, enabling route sharing between them.
Understanding route-distinguisher (RD)
The RD (Route Distinguisher) only ensures uniqueness of overlapping IP prefixes within the MPLS network.
It does not control route sharing between VRFs.
In the exhibit, both VRFs have the same RD (65512:1), but this does not influence whether they share routes.
Correct Answer Selection
A (Correct): The vrf-target configuration enables route sharing between CE-1 and CE-2 since they have the same RT (65512:100).
B (Incorrect): The vrf-target does the opposite---it allows sharing, not blocking.
C (Incorrect): The route-distinguisher only provides unique route identification, but does not affect route sharing.
D (Incorrect): Again, route-distinguisher has no impact on route sharing.
Reference from Juniper Official Documentation
Juniper Documentation - Junos MPLS VPNs Configuration Guide: 'Route targets (vrf-target) are used to control the import and export of VPN routes between different VRFs. VRFs with the same route target can import and export routes to each other, enabling inter-VRF communication.'
Thus, the correct answer is: A. The vrf-target configuration will allow routes to be shared between CE-1 and CE-2.
You are responding to an RFP for a new MPLS VPN implementation. The solution must use LDP for signaling and support Layer 2 connectivity without using BGP The solution must be scalable and support multiple VPN connections over a single MPLS LSP The customer wants to maintain all routing for their Private network
In this scenario, which solution do you propose?
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.
Which two statements are correct about reflecting inet-vpn unicast prefixes in BGP route reflection? (Choose two.)
Route reflection is a BGP feature that allows a router to reflect routes learned from one IBGP peer to another IBGP peer, without requiring a full-mesh IBGP topology. Route reflectors do not change any existing BGP attributes by default when advertising routes, unless explicitly configured to do so. A BGP peer does not require any configuration changes to become a route reflector client, only the route reflector needs to be configured with the client parameter under [edit protocols bgp group group-name neighbor neighbor-address] hierarchy level.
