JN0-364 Exam Dumps - Service Provider Routing and Switching - Specialist (JNCIS-SP)

For OSPF routers to transition from the "Init" state to a full adjacency, they must agree on several parameters exchanged within theirHello packets. If these parameters do not match, the routers will refuse to form a neighbor relationship, a common point of failure in service provider networks.

According to Juniper Networks documentation, the following fields are mandatory matches:

Hello Interval (Option B):The frequency at which Hello packets are sent. Default is 10 seconds on broadcast networks.

Dead Interval (Option D):The time a router waits without receiving a Hello before declaring a neighbor down. Default is 4 times the Hello interval.

Network Mask (Option C):On broadcast and NBMA (Non-Broadcast Multi-Access) segments, the subnet masks must match because OSPF uses the mask to determine the network boundaries for the link-state advertisements.

Area ID:Routers must belong to the same logical OSPF area.

Authentication:If configured, the type and password/key must be identical.

Why other options are incorrect:

Router Priority (Option A):This is used to influence the election of the Designated Router (DR). It doesnotneed to match; in fact, different priorities are often used to ensure a specific router becomes the DR.

Designated Router (Option E):The DR is theresultof an election that happens after the initial Hello exchange. It is not a field that must match beforehand to start the process.

By ensuring the Hello/Dead timers and the Subnet Mask are synchronized, OSPF guarantees a stable and predictable environment for the subsequent exchange of Link-State Advertisements (LSAs).

TheBGP path selection algorithmis a deterministic process used by Juniper routers to select the single "best" path from the BGP table to be placed into the routing table (inet.0). This algorithm follows a specific, hierarchical set of rules. According to Juniper Networks technical documentation, the router evaluates attributes in a fixed order, and once a tie is broken at a specific step, the remaining steps are ignored.

The order of the primary BGP attributes in Junos OS is as follows:

Highest Local Preference:This is the first attribute evaluated after the basic check for a reachable next hop. Local preference is used within an Autonomous System (AS) to prioritize one exit point over another.

Shortest AS_PATH:If the local preference is equal, the router then evaluates the length of the AS_PATH attribute.

Lowest Origin Code:(IGP < EGP < Incomplete).

Lowest Multi-Exit Discriminator (MED).

In this specific scenario, the router compares a path with ahigher local preferenceagainst a path with ashorter AS path. Because theLocal Preferencecheck occurs at Step 1 and theAS_PATHcheck occurs later at Step 2, the router will select the path with the higher local preference immediately. The length of the AS path becomes irrelevant in this comparison because the tie was already broken by the local preference value. This allows network administrators to override the default "shortest path" logic of BGP to prefer specific providers or links based on business requirements.

One of the most significant architectural improvements in IPv6 is the move from a complex, variable-length header (as seen in IPv4) to a streamlined, fixed-length base header of 40 bytes. Additional functionality that was previously handled by "Options" in IPv4 is now moved toExtension Headers, which are inserted between the IPv6 base header and the upper-layer protocol (TCP/UDP).

According to Juniper Networks technical documentation and RFC 8200, the following are valid IPv6 Extension Headers:

Hop-by-Hop Options (Option B):This header carries optional information that must be examined by every node along the delivery path. It is used for features like the Router Alert and Jumbo Payload options.

Fragment (Option E):Unlike IPv4, where any router can fragment a packet, in IPv6, fragmentation is performed only by the source node. The Fragment header contains the information necessary for the destination to reassemble the packet (Offset, Identification, and More Fragments flag).

Destination Options (Option A):This header carries information intended only for the destination node. It can appear twice: once before a routing header and once after.

Why other options are incorrect:

Protocol (Option C):In IPv4, this was a field in the header. In IPv6, this is replaced by theNext Headerfield, which identifies the type of the following header (whether it's an extension header or the upper-layer protocol).

Header Checksum (Option D):This field was entirely removed in IPv6. IPv6 relies on the data link layer (Ethernet) and the transport layer (TCP/UDP) to perform error detection, significantly reducing the processing overhead for routers in the core of a service provider network.

In the context of Juniper Networks High Availability,Bidirectional Forwarding Detection (BFD)is a lightweight protocol designed to provide fast failure detection for the forwarding path. Unlike the slow "hello" mechanisms found in IGPs like OSPF or IS-IS, BFD can detect link or neighbor failures in sub-second intervals.

According to Juniper Networks technical documentation, BFD operates through a negotiation process. When two routers establish a BFD session, they exchange their locally configuredMinimum Transmit IntervalandMinimum Receive Intervalwithin the BFD control packets. The fundamental rule of BFD negotiation is that the routers must agree on a common timing value that accommodates the slower of the two devices to ensure stability and prevent "false positives" (detecting a failure when none exists simply because one router cannot keep up with the processing speed).

In this scenario, R1 expects to send at 300ms, while R2 is configured for 400ms. During the handshake, R1 informs R2 it is capable of 300ms, but R2 informs R1 it can only support a minimum of 400ms. Consequently, the routers will negotiate to use theslowest of the two rates (400ms). Specifically, the transmission interval of one router is matched to the receive interval of the other. By choosing the highest common denominator (the slowest rate), the BFD session ensures that both routers have sufficient time to process incoming control packets. This negotiation allows BFD to be highly flexible in heterogeneous environments where different hardware platforms may have varying CPU capabilities for handling rapid heartbeat packets.

In Junos OS, understanding the distinction between theRouting Information Base (RIB)and theForwarding Information Base (FIB)is fundamental to analyzing traffic patterns and load-balancing behavior. The RIB (show route) contains all prefixes learned via various protocols, while the FIB (show route forwarding-table) contains only the active next-hops that are actually programmed into the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE).

According to Juniper Networks technical documentation, the default behavior for Junos OS when encounteringEqual-Cost Multipath (ECMP)routes is to select only a single next-hop from the available candidates in the RIB and install that single path into the FIB. In a default state, even if the show route output displays multiple next-hops for a destination like 172.24.0.0/24, only one would have the active route symbol (>) and only that one would appear in the forwarding table.

In the provided exhibit, the show route output shows two next-hops for 172.24.0.0/24, but only the first one (172.20.0.2) is marked with the>symbol as the active selection. However, the subsequent show route forwarding-table output reveals thatboth next-hops(172.20.0.2 and 172.20.1.2) are currently present in the forwarding table for that same destination. This discrepancy indicates that thedefault load-balancing behavior has been modified (Option B). This modification is typically achieved by creating a routing policy with the action then load-balance per-packet (which actually results in flow-based load balancing) and applying it to the forwarding table via the export statement under [edit routing-options forwarding-table].

Because the forwarding table now contains both next-hops, the router is no longer restricted to a single path. Therefore, therouter will choose both next-hops in the routing table (Option D)for packet forwarding, distributing flows across the two available Gigabit Ethernet interfaces (ge-0/0/2.0 and ge-0/0/3.0). This ensures higher utilized bandwidth and provides redundancy at the data plane level.

In a Juniper Networks environment,Resource Reservation Protocol (RSVP)is a signaling protocol used to establish Label-Switched Paths (LSPs). While RSVP handles the actual signaling (requesting labels and reserving bandwidth along a path), it does not inherently know which path to take. This is whereConstrained Shortest Path First (CSPF)comes into play.

CSPFis an advanced version of the Dijkstra algorithm used specifically for traffic engineering. Unlike the standard SPF used by IGPs, which only considers the shortest metric, CSPF takes into account multiple constraints such as available bandwidth, link coloring (administrative groups), and explicit hop requirements. According to Juniper technical documentation, when an LSP is configured, the Ingress router uses CSPF to calculate a loop-free path that satisfies all these constraints before RSVP begins signaling. This is why statementBis the correct description of the operational flow.

StatementDis a common distractor. While CSPF uses theTraffic Engineering Database (TED)to perform its calculations, the path is not "calculated by the TED" itself; the TED is merely the repository of link-state information (provided by OSPF or IS-IS extensions). StatementCrefers to Segment Routing Global Block (SRGB), which is relevant to Segment Routing (SR-TE), not standard RSVP-signaled LSPs. Finally, statementAis incorrect because admin-groups (link coloring) are actually one of the primary constraints thatrequireCSPF to determine a valid path.

In a Juniper Networks MPLS environment, the process by which a router determines how to forward traffic involves both the control plane and the data plane. When R1 (acting as an Ingress Label Edge Router, or LER) receives an IP packet from Site A destined for Site B, it must perform a lookup to decide whether to forward the packet via standard IP routing or via an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP).

The first criterion R1 uses is thedestination address of the traffic(Option C). Upon receiving the native IP packet, R1 looks up the destination IP in its routing table (typically inet.0). If the destination matches a prefix that is associated with an LSP—such as the loopback address of R5 or a prefix reachable via R5—the router identifies the appropriate Forwarding Equivalence Class (FEC). The FEC essentially groups packets that should be forwarded in the same manner over the same path. Without identifying the destination, the router cannot map the traffic to the correct MPLS tunnel.

The second criterion is thelabel number advertisement received from R2(Option D). MPLS relies on downstream label allocation. In this topology, R2 is the immediate downstream "next hop" for R1 on the path to Site B. For the LSP to be established, R2 must signal a label to R1 using a protocol like LDP (Label Distribution Protocol) or RSVP (Resource Reservation Protocol). This label (in this case, 7166) tells R1: "If you want to send traffic to the destination associated with this LSP, wrap it in this specific label so I know how to process it."

R1 does not use the source address (Option A) for standard label mapping, nor does it receive the label directly from R5 (Option B) in a hop-by-hop signaling model; it must use the label provided by its direct neighbor, R2. Therefore, by combining the destination IP (to find the path) and the label provided by the next hop (to encapsulate the packet), R1 successfully directs the traffic through the MPLS core.

In a Juniper Networks environment, establishing a functionalMultiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS)Label-Switched Path (LSP) requires synchronized control plane operations. According to Juniper technical documentation, the most common reason for an LSP to remain in the "Down" state at the ingress router is a failure of theConstrained Shortest Path First (CSPF)algorithm during the path computation phase.

The provided exhibit for routerR1reveals a critical error in the show mpls lsp detail output: "CSPF: could not determine self". This specific error indicates that the CSPF process is unable to find its own local router ID within theTraffic Engineering Database (TED). For CSPF to build a valid TED, the underlying Interior Gateway Protocol (IGP), such as OSPF, must be configured to flood opaque link-state advertisements (Type 10 LSAs) that carry traffic engineering attributes. As seen in the OSPF configuration, traffic engineering is not enabled. Therefore, issuing theset protocols ospf traffic-engineeringcommand (Option D) will allow R1 to populate the TED with its own local information and that of its neighbors, enabling CSPF to calculate a valid path.

Alternatively, an administrator can choose to bypass the requirement for a TED entirely by disabling CSPF on the specific LSP. By issuing theset protocols mpls label-switched-path to-r3 no-cspfcommand (Option B), the router will stop attempting to perform a constrained path calculation. Instead, the signaling protocol (RSVP) will rely on the standardinet.0routing table to determine the hop-by-hop path to the egress destination (192.168.100.3), allowing the LSP to establish without traffic engineering constraints.

Regarding the other options, whilefamily mplsis required on all transit interfaces, the ingress loopback interface (lo0) generally does not require it for standard LSP signaling unless it's used as a transit hop. Furthermore, adding a static route toinet.3(Option A) is used for next-hop resolution of BGP routes over LSPs but does not assist in the signaling or establishment of the LSP itself.