McAfee-Secured Website

Exam Code: JN0-650

Exam Name: Enterprise Routing and Switching, Professional (JNCIP-ENT)

Certification Provider: Juniper

Corresponding Certification: JNCIP-ENT

Questions & Answers

100% Juniper JN0-650 Guaranteed Success With Testking Training Materials

Get Real JN0-650 Exam Questions & Expert Verified Answers as Experienced on the Real Exam!

Questions & Answers

107 Questions & Answers with Testing Engine

"Enterprise Routing and Switching, Professional (JNCIP-ENT) Exam", also known as JN0-650 exam, is a Juniper certification exam.

Pass your tests with the always up-to-date JN0-650 Exam Engine. Your JN0-650 training materials keep you at the head of the pack!

Satisfaction Guaranteed

Money Back Guarantee

Testking provides hassle-free money back guarantee with our products. That is because we have 100% trust in the abilities of our professional and experience product team, and our record is a proof of that.

99.6% PASS RATE
Was: $137.49
Now: $124.99

Juniper JN0-650 Practice Test 20

Question 190

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.
  2. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.
  3. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.
  4. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This is the direct result of the IBGP next-hop self decision: Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with BGP MED export (Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS.), not the specified action.

B:

This outcome is associated with Route reflector signaling (Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with NO_EXPORT community (Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement.), not the specified action.

Question 191

An iBGP router receives external routes whose original next hops are unreachable to other iBGP clients. A colleague instead suggests: Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions.
  2. Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement.
  3. Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS.
  4. Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This corrective choice addresses IBGP next-hop self. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to Route reflector signaling instead. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

B:

That alternative applies to NO_EXPORT community instead. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.

C:

That alternative applies to BGP MED export instead. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Question 192

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. An iBGP router receives external routes whose original next hops are unreachable to other iBGP clients.
  2. A full mesh of iBGP speakers is operationally expensive in a large routing domain.
  3. An organization has two interconnects to the same upstream AS and wants to signal a preferred ingress link.
  4. A BGP route may circulate inside the receiving AS but must not be advertised beyond it via ordinary eBGP propagation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This case requires the IBGP next-hop self action. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This other case would be better matched to Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.

Question 193

A team expects an externally connected BGP peer to receive an AS-internal LOCAL_PREF policy value as an advertised attribute. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Use a permitted BGP export policy to prepend its own AS number to the backup announcement.
  2. Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design.
  3. Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF.
  4. Attach a standard BGP community to selected routes using routing policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This action addresses LOCAL_PREF scope. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That action targets AS path prepend: Remote networks may see a longer AS path and prefer the other ingress when other factors tie. It does not directly resolve the stated LOCAL_PREF scope requirement.

B:

That action targets BGP large community: Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields. It does not directly resolve the stated LOCAL_PREF scope requirement.

D:

That action targets BGP standard community: Multiple peers can classify routes by the shared community tag without matching every prefix. It does not directly resolve the stated LOCAL_PREF scope requirement.

Question 194

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. Multiple peers can classify routes by the shared community tag without matching every prefix.
  2. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.
  3. Remote networks may see a longer AS path and prefer the other ingress when other factors tie.
  4. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This is the direct result of the LOCAL_PREF scope decision: Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with BGP standard community (Attach a standard BGP community to selected routes using routing policy.), not the specified action.

B:

This outcome is associated with BGP large community (Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with AS path prepend (Use a permitted BGP export policy to prepend its own AS number to the backup announcement.), not the specified action.

Question 195

A team expects an externally connected BGP peer to receive an AS-internal LOCAL_PREF policy value as an advertised attribute. A colleague instead suggests: Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF.
  2. Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design.
  3. Use a permitted BGP export policy to prepend its own AS number to the backup announcement.
  4. Attach a standard BGP community to selected routes using routing policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This corrective choice addresses LOCAL_PREF scope. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That alternative applies to BGP large community instead. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

C:

That alternative applies to AS path prepend instead. Remote networks may see a longer AS path and prefer the other ingress when other factors tie.

D:

That alternative applies to BGP standard community instead. Multiple peers can classify routes by the shared community tag without matching every prefix.

Question 196

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. A dual-homed enterprise wants to make one inbound provider path less attractive as a backup route.
  2. A team expects an externally connected BGP peer to receive an AS-internal LOCAL_PREF policy value as an advertised attribute.
  3. A provider needs a route tag with a global-admin field and two additional 32-bit values for fine-grained policy semantics.
  4. An operator needs to label routes so several downstream policies can match them consistently.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This case requires the LOCAL_PREF scope action. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Use a permitted BGP export policy to prepend its own AS number to the backup announcement. Remote networks may see a longer AS path and prefer the other ingress when other factors tie.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Attach a standard BGP community to selected routes using routing policy. Multiple peers can classify routes by the shared community tag without matching every prefix.

Question 197

An organization has two interconnects to the same upstream AS and wants to signal a preferred ingress link. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions.
  2. Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement.
  3. Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS.
  4. Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This action addresses BGP MED export. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That action targets Route reflector signaling: Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP MED export requirement.

B:

That action targets NO_EXPORT community: BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP MED export requirement.

D:

That action targets IBGP next-hop self: Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP MED export requirement.

Question 198

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.
  2. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.
  3. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.
  4. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This is the direct result of the BGP MED export decision: The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with Route reflector signaling (Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions.), not the specified action.

B:

This outcome is associated with NO_EXPORT community (Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with IBGP next-hop self (Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point.), not the specified action.

Question 199

An organization has two interconnects to the same upstream AS and wants to signal a preferred ingress link. A colleague instead suggests: Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS.
  2. Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions.
  3. Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point.
  4. Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This corrective choice addresses BGP MED export. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That alternative applies to Route reflector signaling instead. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

C:

That alternative applies to IBGP next-hop self instead. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.

D:

That alternative applies to NO_EXPORT community instead. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.

Question 200

An enterprise network designer recommends: Advertise an appropriate MED value on the relevant route toward that neighboring AS. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. A full mesh of iBGP speakers is operationally expensive in a large routing domain.
  2. An organization has two interconnects to the same upstream AS and wants to signal a preferred ingress link.
  3. An iBGP router receives external routes whose original next hops are unreachable to other iBGP clients.
  4. A BGP route may circulate inside the receiving AS but must not be advertised beyond it via ordinary eBGP propagation.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This case requires the BGP MED export action. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Use a supported next-hop-self behavior at the iBGP advertisement point. Clients can resolve the advertised next hop through the advertising router when designed properly.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.

Enterprise Routing and Switching, Professional (JNCIP-ENT) (JN0-650) Practice Tests