IT認証試験問題集
毎月、ITshikenは1500人以上の受験者が試験準備を助けて、試験に合格するために受験者にご協力します
 ホームページ / JN0-360 問題集  / JN0-360 問題練習

Juniper JN0-360 問題練習

Service Provider Routing and Switching, Specialist (JNCIS-SP) 試験

最新更新時間: 2021/01/13,合計1113問。

2021新年のギフト:JN0-360 最新真題を買う時、日本語版と英語版両方を同時に獲得できます。

実際の問題集を練習し、試験のポイントを了解し、テストに申し込むするかどうかを決めることができます。

さらに試験準備時間の35%を節約するには、JN0-360 問題集を使用してください。

 / 75

Question No : 1
Based on the exhibit, which configuration will permit end-to-end routing through the GRE tunnel for R1?



正解:

Question No : 2
In the exhibit, which configuration element is missing to bring up the Layer 2 circuit?
[email protected]# show interfaces
xe-0/0/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 192.168.12.1/24;
}
family mpls;
}
}
xe-0/0/1 {
encapsulation ethernet-ccc;
unit 0 {
family ccc;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 1.1.1.1/32;
}
}
}
[edit]
[email protected]# show protocols
mpls {
interface all;
}
ospf {
traffic-engineering;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface all;
}
}
ldp {
interface all;
}
l2circuit {
neighbor 2.2.2.2 {
interface xe-0/0/1.0 {}
}
}

正解:

Question No : 3
In the exhibit, all switches run STP; however, the link between bridge G and bridge E fails.



What does root bridge A do after it receives information about this link failure?

正解:

Question No : 4
Referring to the exhibit, what is missing in the configuration to make the Layer 3 VPN functional? (Choose two.)
[edit]
[email protected]# show protocols bgp
group ibgp {
type internal;
local-address 3.3.3.3;
family inet;
neighbor 2.2.2.2;
}
[edit]
[email protected]# show routing-instances
VRF {
instance-type vrf;
interface xe-0/0/1.0;
route-distinguisher 3.3.3.3:100;
vrf-target target:100:100;
vrf-table-label;
}
[edit]
[email protected]# show protocols mpls
interface all;
[edit]
[email protected]# show protocols rsvp
interface all;

正解:

Question No : 5
Referring to the exhibit, you have an established RSVP LSP between R1 and R5 when you experience a link failure between R2 and R4.



Which two statements are correct? (Choose two.)

正解:

Question No : 6
Click the Exhibit button.




In the exhibit, A1 sends a broadcast frame with destination MAC address FFFF.FFFF.FFFF, and all other stations have sent a response.
What would be the correct MAC address table on the MX240?

正解:

Question No : 7
Click the Exhibit button.
[email protected]> show configuration routing-options
autonomous-system 65001;
[email protected]> show configuration protocols bgp
group 65002 {
traceoptions {
file bgp-trace;
flag open detail;
}
neighbor 192.168.100.2 {
peer-as 65002;
}
}
[email protected]> show log bgp-trace
Feb 5 20:07:08 trace_on: Tracing to "/var/log/bgp-trace" started Feb 5 20:08:23.477912 bgp_senD. sending 63 bytes to 192.168.100.2 (External AS 65002)
Feb 5 20:08:23.478040
Feb 5 20:08:23.478040 BGP SEND 192.168.100.1+62776 -> 192.168.100.2+179 Feb 5 20:08:23.478077 BGP SEND message type 1 (Open) length 63 Feb 5 20:08:23.478100 BGP SEND version 4 as 65001 holdtime 90 id 10.200.1.4 parmlen 34
Feb 5 20:08:23.478119 BGP SEND MP capability AFI=1, SAFI=1 Feb 5 20:08:23.478138 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=128 Feb 5 20:08:23.478155 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=2 Feb 5 20:08:23.478176 BGP SEND Restart capability, code=64, time=120, flags=
Feb 5 20:08:23.478196 BGP SEND Restart capability AFI=1, SAF=1, Flags=ForwardingSaved
Feb 5 20:08:23.478217 BGP SEND 4 Byte AS-Path capability (65), as_num 65001
Feb 5 20:08:23.478820
Feb 5 20:08:23.478820 BGP RECV 192.168.100.2+179 -> 192.168.100.1+62776 Feb 5 20:08:23.478859 BGP RECV message type 1 (Open) length 59
Feb 5 20:08:23.478880 BGP RECV version 4 as 65003 holdtime 90 id 192.168.1.1 parmlen 30
Feb 5 20:08:23.478899 BGP RECV MP capability AFI=1, SAFI=1 Feb 5 20:08:23.478918 BGP RECV Refresh capability, code=128 Feb 5 20:08:23.478935 BGP RECV Refresh capability, code=2 Feb 5 20:08:23.478955 BGP RECV Restart capability, code=64, time=120, flags=
Feb 5 20:08:23.478974 BGP RECV 4 Byte AS-Path capability (65), as_num 65003
Feb 5 20:08:23.479057 bgp_process_open: : NOTIFICATION sent to 192.168.100.2 (External AS 65002): code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 2 (bad peer AS number), Reason: peer 192.168.100.2 (External AS 65002) claims 65003, 65002 configured
Feb 5 20:08:23.479083 bgp_senD. sending 21 bytes to 192.168.100.2 (External AS 65002)
Feb 5 20:08:23.479104
Feb 5 20:08:23.479104 BGP SEND 192.168.100.1+62776 -> 192.168.100.2+179 Feb 5 20:08:23.479136 BGP SEND message type 3 (Notification) length 21 Feb 5 20:08:23.479156 BGP SEND Notification code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 2 (bad
peer AS number)
You have been asked to configure an EBGP peering to AS 65002. The EBGP peering is stuck in an Active state.
Referring to the exhibit, what would be changed to bring up the peering?

正解:

Question No : 8
You are asked to configure an EBGP peering to AS 65002. The EBGP peering is stuck in a Connect state.
Referring to the exhibit, what should be changed to the BGP configuration to bring up the peering?
[email protected]> show configuration interfaces ge-1/0/0
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 192.168.100.1/30;
}
}
[email protected]> show configuration routing-options
autonomous-system 65001;
[email protected]> show configuration protocols bgp
group 65002 {
traceoptions {
file bgp-trace;
flag open detail;
}
neighbor 192.168.100.3 {
peer-as 65002;
}
}
[email protected]> show log bgp-trace
Feb 5 20:31:01 R4 clear-log[5510]: logfile cleared
Feb 5 20:32:22.658155 bgp_connect_completE. error connecting to 192.168.100.3 (External AS 65002): Socket is not connected [email protected]> run monitor traffic interface ge-1/0/0 extensive Address resolution is ON. Use to avoid any reverse lookup delay.
Address resolution timeout is 4s.
Listening on ge-1/0/0, capture size 1514 bytes
20:45:44.212833 Out
Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, valuE. Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, valuE.
Ethernet (14)
Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, valuE. 35328 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, valuE. 70 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, valuE. 32767 -----original packet-----
80:71:1f:c7:f8:60 > 84:18:88:8e:3b:3f, ethertype 802.1Q (0x8100), length
82: vlan 435, p 6, ethertype IPv4, (tos 0xc0, ttl 255, id 19548, offset 0, flags [DF], proto: TCP (6), length: 64) 192.168.100.1.bgp > 192.168.100.2.49373: S 1088527795:1088527795(0) ack 214564428 win 16384
20:45:44.213226 In
Juniper PCAP Flags [Ext, no-L2, In], PCAP Extension(s) total length 22 Device Media Type Extension TLV #3, length 1, valuE. Ethernet (1) Logical Interface Encapsulation Extension TLV #6, length 1, valuE.
Ethernet (14)
Device Interface Index Extension TLV #1, length 2, valuE. 35328 Logical Interface Index Extension TLV #4, length 4, valuE. 70 Logical Unit Number Extension TLV #5, length 4, valuE. 32767 -----original packet-----
PFE proto 2 (ipv4): (tos 0xc0, ttl 1, id 2367, offset 0, flags [none], proto: TCP (6), length: 52) 192.168.100.2.49373 > 192.168.100.1.bgp: .
1:1(0) ack 1 win 17376

正解:

Question No : 9
Click the Exhibit button.



You are asked to configure a new external BGP peering. You have configured BGP on R1 as shown in the exhibit, however the BGP peering remains in Active state.
Which additional configuration is required on R1 to establish the BGP peering?

正解:

Question No : 10
200.4.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:09:12
Reject
[email protected]> show configuration protocols bgp
export export-200;
group c5 {
neighbor 192.168.100.2 {
export export-200.200;
peer-as 65002;
}
}
[email protected]> show configuration policy-options policy-statement export- 200.200
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 200.200.0.0/22 longer;
}
then accept;
}
[email protected]> show configuration policy-options policy-statement export-200 term 1 {
from {
route-filter 200.200.0.0/21 longer;
}
then accept;
}

正解:
Explanation:

Question No : 11
0000.0020.0200.2002/72
*[Direct/0] 3w4d 21:07:32
> via lo0.0
inet6.0: 3 destinations, 4 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden) + = Active Route, - = Last Active, * = Both
2:2:2::2/128 *[Direct/0] 3w4d 21:22:24
> via lo0.0
[edit]
[email protected]# show policy-options
policy-statement adv-route {
term t1 {
from {
protocol isis;
route-filter 200.1.0.0/16 exact;
}
then accept;
}
term t2 {
then reject;
}
}
[edit]
[email protected]# show protocols bgp
group ebgp {
type external;
export adv-route;
neighbor 192.168.12.1 {
peer-as 65000;
}
}

正解:

Question No : 12
1.1.1 200 0 1 14:06 Active

正解:

Question No : 13
1.1.1 300 10 0 1 14:06 Idle

正解:

Question No : 14
Referring to the exhibit, R1 and R2 are directly connected using interface ge-1/1/0.
What is the reason the IS-IS adjacency fails?
[email protected]> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.1/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.1/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1001.0010.0100.00;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
isis {
level 1 disable;
interface ge-1/1/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}
}
[email protected]> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.2/30;
}
family iso {
mtu 1496;
}
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.2/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1002.0010.0200.00;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
isis {
interface ge-1/1/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}
}

正解:

Question No : 15
Referring to the exhibit, R1 and R2 are directly connected using interface ge-1/1/0.
What happens as a result of the configurations?
[email protected]> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.1/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.1/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1001.0010.0100.00;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
isis {
interface ge-1/1/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}
}
[email protected]> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.2/30;
}
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.2/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1001.0010.0200.00;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
isis {
interface ge-1/1/0.0;
interface lo0.0;
}
}

正解:

 / 75