Juniper JN0-694 Exam : Enterprise Routing and Switching Support, Professional (JNCSP-ENT)

Two neighboring routers are able to form an OSPF adjacency, but are not able to establish an IBGP neighborship.
What are two reasons for the IBGP neighborship problem? (Choose two.)

• A. One or both of the connected interfaces are missing the family iso statement.
• B. OSPF has a lower route preference than BGP.
• C. One of the devices has a misconfigured BGP peer address.
• D. A firewall filter on one of the interfaces is blocking TCP traffic.

-- Exhibit --
user@router# show class-of-service
classifiers {
inet-precedence ipp-test {
import default;
forwarding-class best-effort {
loss-priority low code-points be;
}
forwarding-class expedited-forwarding {
loss-priority low code-points af21;
}
forwarding-class assured-forwarding {
loss-priority low code-points af11;
}
forwarding-class network-control {
loss-priority low code-points nc1;
}
}
}
user@router# show firewall
filter MF {
term 1 {
from {
precedence 0;
}
then forwarding-class best-effort;
}
term 2 {
from {
precedence 5;
}
then forwarding-class expedited-forwarding;
}
term 3 {
from {
precedence 2;
}
then forwarding-class assured-forwarding;
}
term 4 {
from {
precedence 6;
}
then forwarding-class network-control;
}
term 5 {
then accept;
}
}
user@router> show class-of-service
...
Code point type: inet-precedence
Alias Bit pattern af11 001 af21 010 af31 011 af41 100 be 000 cs6 110 cs7 111 ef 101 nc1 110 nc2 111 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
Traffic with the IPP value af21 should be assigned to the expedited forwarding queue; however, this traffic is not being assigned to that queue.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing this behavior?

• A. The af21 traffic is assigned to the best effort queue because of the MF classifier.
• B. The af21 traffic is assigned to the assured forwarding queue because of the BA classifier.
• C. The af21 traffic is assigned to the best effort queue because of the BA classifier.
• D. The af21 traffic is assigned to the assured forwarding queue because of the MF classifier.

-- Exhibit -user@R1> show bgp neighbor 172.10.3.201 Peer: 172.10.3.201+54714 AS 64512 Local: 172.10.3.202+179 AS 64513 Type: External State: Established Flags: Last State: OpenConfirm Last Event: RecvKeepAlive Last Error: None Export: [ export ] Options: Local Address: 172.10.3.202 Holdtime: 90 Preference: 170 Local AS: 64513 Local System AS: 0 Number of flaps: 0 Peer ID. 10.247.194.254 Local ID. 10.247.24.6 Active Holdtime: 90 Keepalive Interval: 30 Peer index: 0 BFD. disabled, down Local Interface: ge-0/0/0.500 NLRI for restart configured on peer: inet-unicast NLRI advertised by peer: inet-unicast NLRI for this session: inet-unicast Peer supports Refresh capability (2) Restart time configured on the peer: 120 Stale routes from peer are kept for: 300 Restart time requested by this peer: 120 NLRI that peer supports restart for: inet-unicast NLRI that restart is negotiated for: inet-unicast NLRI of received end-of-rib markers: inet-unicast NLRI of all end-of-rib markers sent: inet-unicast Peer supports 4 byte AS extension (peer-as 64512) Peer does not support Addpath Table inet.0 Bit: 30000 RIB State: BGP restart is complete RIB State: VPN restart is complete Send state: in sync Active prefixes: 7 Received prefixes: 7 Accepted prefixes: 7 Suppressed due to damping: 0 Advertised prefixes: 30 Last traffic (seconds): Received 5 Sent 18 Checked 8 Input messages: Total 40 Updates 3 Refreshes 0 Octets 877 Output messages: Total 55 Updates 13 Refreshes 0 Octets 1764 Output Queue[2]: 0 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
A customer reports that BGP graceful restart is not working on R1. After a Routing Engine failover, R1 did not set the restart state bit in its Open message. The customer provides the BGP neighbor output shown in the exhibit.
Referring the exhibit, what is causing this problem?

• A. BGP graceful restart is not enabled on the peer device.
• B. BGP graceful restart is not enabled on R1.
• C. The restart duration time is not configured on R1.
• D. The restart duration time is not configured on the peer device.

-- Exhibit - -- Exhibit -

Click the Exhibit button.
Your network has two connections to your ISP. You have been asked to load-balance traffic across both links that connect to your ISP. You have enabled multipath for this peer, but you are still not getting the expected load balancing.
Given the information shown in the exhibit, what else must you do?

• A. Change the multipath parameter to multihop.
• B. Enable the keep all parameter.
• C. Create a policy to manually change the next hops.
• D. Configure and apply a load-balancing policy.

-- Exhibit -

-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You are troubleshooting an OSPF adjacency problem between R1 and R2.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing this OSPF adjacency problem?

• A. There is an MTU mismatch.
• B. There is a dead interval mismatch.
• C. There is an LSA refresh timer mismatch.
• D. There is a hello interval mismatch.