McAfee-Secured Website

Exam Code: JN0-650

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

Certification Provider: Juniper

Corresponding Certification: JNCIP-ENT

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!

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 21

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.

Question 201

A provider needs a route tag with a global-admin field and two additional 32-bit values for fine-grained policy semantics. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This action addresses BGP large community. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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 BGP large community requirement.

B:

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 BGP large community requirement.

D:

That action targets LOCAL_PREF scope: Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP large community requirement.

Question 202

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design. Which outcome most directly follows?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This is the direct result of the BGP large community decision: Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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.

B:

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

C:

This outcome is associated with LOCAL_PREF scope (Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF.), not the specified action.

Question 203

A provider needs a route tag with a global-admin field and two additional 32-bit values for fine-grained policy semantics. A colleague instead suggests: Attach a standard BGP community to selected routes using routing policy. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design.
  2. Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF.
  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 BGP large community. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That alternative applies to LOCAL_PREF scope instead. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

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 204

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use a BGP large community in the supported community policy design. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This case requires the BGP large community action. Extended tagging can carry structured 32-bit components without relying on legacy 16-bit community fields.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Use local preference for iBGP-internal egress policy rather than assuming EBGP carries LOCAL_PREF. Outbound path preference can be coordinated inside the AS without relying on external propagation.

C:

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.

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 205

A full mesh of iBGP speakers is operationally expensive in a large routing domain. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This action addresses Route reflector signaling. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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 Route reflector signaling requirement.

C:

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 Route reflector signaling requirement.

D:

That action targets BGP MED export: The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy. It does not directly resolve the stated Route reflector signaling requirement.

Question 206

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. BGP speakers honoring the community avoid advertising the route to external AS peers.
  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. The neighboring AS can use the metric when comparing eligible routes according to its policy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct result of the Route reflector signaling decision: Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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.

D:

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.

Question 207

A full mesh of iBGP speakers is operationally expensive in a large routing domain. A colleague instead suggests: Apply the well-known NO_EXPORT community to the selected advertisement. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

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

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This corrective choice addresses Route reflector signaling. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

B:

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

Question 208

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use a properly designed BGP route-reflector topology with client sessions. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. A BGP route may circulate inside the receiving AS but must not be advertised beyond it via ordinary eBGP propagation.
  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 full mesh of iBGP speakers is operationally expensive in a large routing domain.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This case requires the Route reflector signaling action. Reflector clients can receive eligible iBGP routes without a full direct mesh among all clients.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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.

B:

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.

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.

Question 209

A peer inadvertently sends unauthorized more-specific routes and the enterprise must reject them at BGP import. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Apply a BGP import policy with a precise route-filter reject for the unwanted prefixes.
  2. Match the community in an import policy and set the desired local-preference action.
  3. Create the required aggregate route and match it in the BGP export policy.
  4. Use a route-filter match type that selects only the intended exact /24 prefix.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This action addresses BGP import prefix filter. The rejected BGP paths are not accepted into the intended local routing information base.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That action targets Community import matching: Tagged paths receive the policy-selected ranking inside the local AS. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP import prefix filter requirement.

C:

That action targets BGP aggregate origination: The selected aggregate can be eligible for advertisement instead of leaking components. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP import prefix filter requirement.

D:

That action targets BGP exact prefix match: The policy can exclude nested more-specific routes that should not be announced. It does not directly resolve the stated BGP import prefix filter requirement.

Question 210

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Apply a BGP import policy with a precise route-filter reject for the unwanted prefixes. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. Tagged paths receive the policy-selected ranking inside the local AS.
  2. The rejected BGP paths are not accepted into the intended local routing information base.
  3. The selected aggregate can be eligible for advertisement instead of leaking components.
  4. The policy can exclude nested more-specific routes that should not be announced.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct result of the BGP import prefix filter decision: The rejected BGP paths are not accepted into the intended local routing information base.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with Community import matching (Match the community in an import policy and set the desired local-preference action.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with BGP aggregate origination (Create the required aggregate route and match it in the BGP export policy.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with BGP exact prefix match (Use a route-filter match type that selects only the intended exact /24 prefix.), not the specified action.

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