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 73

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.

Question 721

Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.
  2. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  3. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.
  4. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This action addresses Egress DSCP rewrite. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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 Egress DSCP rewrite requirement.

C:

That action targets WRED drop profile: Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile. It does not directly resolve the stated Egress DSCP rewrite 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 Egress DSCP rewrite requirement.

Question 722

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.
  2. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.
  3. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.
  4. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct result of the Egress DSCP rewrite decision: The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

C:

This outcome is associated with WRED drop profile (Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.), not the specified action.

D:

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

Question 723

Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes. A colleague instead suggests: Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.
  2. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  3. Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.
  4. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This corrective choice addresses Egress DSCP rewrite. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to WRED drop profile instead. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

B:

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

D:

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

Question 724

An enterprise network designer recommends: Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP. 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. The upstream interface classifies traffic correctly but the downstream provider reports all egress packets marked as best effort.
  3. An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics.
  4. Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This case requires the Egress DSCP rewrite action. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

B:

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.

C:

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 725

An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.
  2. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.
  3. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  4. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This action addresses Default best-effort treatment. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That action targets Drop profile loss priority: Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention. It does not directly resolve the stated Default best-effort treatment requirement.

B:

That action targets WRED drop profile: Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile. It does not directly resolve the stated Default best-effort treatment 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 Default best-effort treatment requirement.

Question 726

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.
  2. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.
  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

D:

This is the direct result of the Default best-effort treatment decision: The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

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 WRED drop profile (Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with Drop profile loss priority (Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.), not the specified action.

Question 727

An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy. A colleague instead suggests: Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic.
  2. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.
  3. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.
  4. Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This corrective choice addresses Default best-effort treatment. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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

C:

That alternative applies to WRED drop profile instead. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

D:

That alternative applies to Drop profile loss priority instead. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Question 728

An enterprise network designer recommends: Allow normal default best-effort forwarding class treatment for unmatched traffic. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. The upstream interface classifies traffic correctly but the downstream provider reports all egress packets marked as best effort.
  2. An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy.
  3. During congestion, high-loss-priority packets should drop earlier than low-loss-priority packets in a shared output class.
  4. A long-lived data queue needs gradual probabilistic packet dropping as congestion builds rather than only tail drop at full occupancy.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This case requires the Default best-effort treatment action. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

D:

This other case would be better matched to Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler. Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile.

Question 729

An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary.
  2. Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.
  3. Apply an output rewrite rule mapping the Junos forwarding class and loss priority to the required DSCP.
  4. Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This action addresses EXP to DSCP remarking. Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That action targets Drop profile loss priority: Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention. It does not directly resolve the stated EXP to DSCP remarking requirement.

C:

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

D:

That action targets WRED drop profile: Packet discard probability can rise with queue fill according to the configured profile. It does not directly resolve the stated EXP to DSCP remarking requirement.

Question 730

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary. 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. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct result of the EXP to DSCP remarking decision: Priority intent can be preserved using the relevant protocol-specific header bits.

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.

C:

This outcome is associated with WRED drop profile (Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with Drop profile loss priority (Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler.), not the specified action.

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