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 72

Question 710

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use egress shaping when buffering and pacing is required, and policing for excess-rate enforcement. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The design differentiates packet delaying from packet discarding or marking.
  2. Traffic exceeding the committed allowance can be dropped or treated as configured.
  3. The assigned queue has a defined share of available transmission service.
  4. The interface queues can use the configured class-to-scheduler assignment.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This is the direct result of the Policing versus shaping decision: The design differentiates packet delaying from packet discarding or marking.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This outcome is associated with Policer excess-rate control (Apply an appropriate Junos traffic policer with defined rate and burst bounds.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with Scheduler transmit rate (Configure a CoS scheduler transmit-rate allocation for the relevant forwarding class.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with Scheduler map attachment (Apply the scheduler map to the intended egress interface.), not the specified action.

Question 711

A network manager expects an ingress policer to hold excess packets in a queue for later forwarding. A colleague instead suggests: Configure a CoS scheduler transmit-rate allocation for the relevant forwarding class. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Configure a CoS scheduler transmit-rate allocation for the relevant forwarding class.
  2. Use egress shaping when buffering and pacing is required, and policing for excess-rate enforcement.
  3. Apply the scheduler map to the intended egress interface.
  4. Apply an appropriate Junos traffic policer with defined rate and burst bounds.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This corrective choice addresses Policing versus shaping. The design differentiates packet delaying from packet discarding or marking.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to Scheduler transmit rate instead. The assigned queue has a defined share of available transmission service.

C:

That alternative applies to Scheduler map attachment instead. The interface queues can use the configured class-to-scheduler assignment.

D:

That alternative applies to Policer excess-rate control instead. Traffic exceeding the committed allowance can be dropped or treated as configured.

Question 712

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use egress shaping when buffering and pacing is required, and policing for excess-rate enforcement. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. A customer-facing ingress port sends traffic well above an agreed rate and must be limited rather than buffered indefinitely.
  2. A link should reserve a predictable fraction of output service for a business-critical application during contention.
  3. A network manager expects an ingress policer to hold excess packets in a queue for later forwarding.
  4. A CoS scheduler map has correct priorities but the production egress port continues using default queue scheduling.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This case requires the Policing versus shaping action. The design differentiates packet delaying from packet discarding or marking.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Apply an appropriate Junos traffic policer with defined rate and burst bounds. Traffic exceeding the committed allowance can be dropped or treated as configured.

B:

This other case would be better matched to Configure a CoS scheduler transmit-rate allocation for the relevant forwarding class. The assigned queue has a defined share of available transmission service.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Apply the scheduler map to the intended egress interface. The interface queues can use the configured class-to-scheduler assignment.

Question 713

A long-lived data queue needs gradual probabilistic packet dropping as congestion builds rather than only tail drop at full occupancy. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  2. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.
  3. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  4. Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This action addresses WRED drop profile. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That action targets Default best-effort treatment: The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification. It does not directly resolve the stated WRED drop profile requirement.

C:

That action targets EXP to DSCP remarking: Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits. It does not directly resolve the stated WRED drop profile requirement.

D:

That action targets Egress DSCP rewrite: The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract. It does not directly resolve the stated WRED drop profile requirement.

Question 714

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.
  2. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.
  3. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.
  4. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This is the direct result of the WRED drop profile decision: Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with Egress DSCP rewrite (Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.), not the specified action.

B:

This outcome is associated with EXP to DSCP remarking (Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with Default best-effort treatment (Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.), not the specified action.

Question 715

A long-lived data queue needs gradual probabilistic packet dropping as congestion builds rather than only tail drop at full occupancy. A colleague instead suggests: Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  2. Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.
  3. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  4. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This corrective choice addresses WRED drop profile. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to EXP to DSCP remarking instead. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

B:

That alternative applies to Egress DSCP rewrite instead. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

C:

That alternative applies to Default best-effort treatment instead. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Question 716

An enterprise network designer recommends: Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. A long-lived data queue needs gradual probabilistic packet dropping as congestion builds rather than only tail drop at full occupancy.
  2. Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes.
  3. An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy.
  4. An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This case requires the WRED drop profile action. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This other case would be better matched to Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

Question 717

During congestion, high-loss-priority packets should drop earlier than low-loss-priority packets in a shared output class. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  2. Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.
  3. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  4. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This action addresses Drop profile loss priority. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That action targets Default best-effort treatment: The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification. It does not directly resolve the stated Drop profile loss priority requirement.

C:

That action targets EXP to DSCP remarking: Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits. It does not directly resolve the stated Drop profile loss priority requirement.

D:

That action targets CoS rewrite verification: The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied. It does not directly resolve the stated Drop profile loss priority requirement.

Question 718

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.
  2. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.
  3. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.
  4. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This is the direct result of the Drop profile loss priority decision: Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with CoS rewrite verification (Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.), not the specified action.

B:

This outcome is associated with EXP to DSCP remarking (Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with Default best-effort treatment (Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.), not the specified action.

Question 719

During congestion, high-loss-priority packets should drop earlier than low-loss-priority packets in a shared output class. A colleague instead suggests: Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.
  2. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  3. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  4. Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This corrective choice addresses Drop profile loss priority. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to CoS rewrite verification instead. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

B:

That alternative applies to EXP to DSCP remarking instead. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

C:

That alternative applies to Default best-effort treatment instead. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Question 720

An enterprise network designer recommends: Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. During congestion, high-loss-priority packets should drop earlier than low-loss-priority packets in a shared output class.
  2. An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics.
  3. An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy.
  4. The upstream interface classifies traffic correctly but the downstream provider reports all egress packets marked as best effort.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This case requires the Drop profile loss priority action. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This other case would be better matched to Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

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