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 74

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.

Question 731

An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics. A colleague instead suggests: Apply a supported weighted random early detection drop profile to the appropriate scheduler. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  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. 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

C:

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

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

B:

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

Question 732

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use supported CoS classification and rewrite mapping across the encapsulation boundary. 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. Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes.
  3. A long-lived data queue needs gradual probabilistic packet dropping as congestion builds rather than only tail drop at full occupancy.
  4. An MPLS-to-IP edge needs to translate service priority from incoming MPLS EXP to appropriate outgoing IP DSCP semantics.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

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

Incorrect Answers

A:

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.

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 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 733

The upstream interface classifies traffic correctly but the downstream provider reports all egress packets marked as best effort. 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. Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings.
  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

B:

This action addresses CoS rewrite verification. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

C:

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 CoS rewrite verification requirement.

D:

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 CoS rewrite verification requirement.

Question 734

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. The packet does not implicitly consume reserved priority service without classification.
  2. The transmitted packet markings can reflect the configured downstream QoS contract.
  3. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.
  4. Drop behavior can favor retaining lower-loss-priority traffic under contention.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This is the direct result of the CoS rewrite verification decision: The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

B:

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.

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.

Question 735

The upstream interface classifies traffic correctly but the downstream provider reports all egress packets marked as best effort. A colleague instead suggests: Map appropriate loss-priority-specific drop profiles to the queue scheduler. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  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. 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

D:

This corrective choice addresses CoS rewrite verification. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

Incorrect Answers

A:

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

B:

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

C:

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

Question 736

An enterprise network designer recommends: Inspect active output CoS rewrite rule and captured egress packet markings. 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. During congestion, high-loss-priority packets should drop earlier than low-loss-priority packets in a shared output class.
  3. An unclassified packet enters a switch with no matching explicit high-priority policy.
  4. Packets leave the enterprise through a trusted interconnect that requires a particular DSCP value for its QoS classes.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This case requires the CoS rewrite verification action. The engineer can determine whether the intended header re-marking was applied.

Incorrect Answers

B:

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.

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 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.

Question 737

An EVPN multihomed Ethernet segment needs signaling to advertise association with reachable provider edge routers. Which Junos networking action or protocol decision best addresses this requirement?

  1. Use Ethernet auto-discovery EVPN Type 1 route signaling.
  2. Use matching BGP route-target import and export policies for the tenant service.
  3. Use EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route signaling.
  4. Inspect EVPN MAC/IP routes and associated BGP signaling as well as the bridge MAC table.

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

This action addresses EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery. Remote EVPN peers can learn the Ethernet segment's auto-discovery reachability.

Incorrect Answers

B:

That action targets EVPN route target import: Only EVPN routes carrying permitted targets are imported into the intended service instance. It does not directly resolve the stated EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery requirement.

C:

That action targets EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast: Remote VTEPs can learn members of the broadcast unknown-unicast multicast delivery set. It does not directly resolve the stated EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery requirement.

D:

That action targets EVPN control plane discovery: The operator can distinguish remotely signaled EVPN reachability from local MAC learning. It does not directly resolve the stated EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery requirement.

Question 738

A Junos network engineer takes this step: Use Ethernet auto-discovery EVPN Type 1 route signaling. Which outcome most directly follows?

  1. Only EVPN routes carrying permitted targets are imported into the intended service instance.
  2. Remote EVPN peers can learn the Ethernet segment's auto-discovery reachability.
  3. Remote VTEPs can learn members of the broadcast unknown-unicast multicast delivery set.
  4. The operator can distinguish remotely signaled EVPN reachability from local MAC learning.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

This is the direct result of the EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery decision: Remote EVPN peers can learn the Ethernet segment's auto-discovery reachability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This outcome is associated with EVPN route target import (Use matching BGP route-target import and export policies for the tenant service.), not the specified action.

C:

This outcome is associated with EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast (Use EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route signaling.), not the specified action.

D:

This outcome is associated with EVPN control plane discovery (Inspect EVPN MAC/IP routes and associated BGP signaling as well as the bridge MAC table.), not the specified action.

Question 739

An EVPN multihomed Ethernet segment needs signaling to advertise association with reachable provider edge routers. A colleague instead suggests: Use EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route signaling. Which corrective approach most directly addresses the original issue?

  1. Use matching BGP route-target import and export policies for the tenant service.
  2. Use EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route signaling.
  3. Use Ethernet auto-discovery EVPN Type 1 route signaling.
  4. Inspect EVPN MAC/IP routes and associated BGP signaling as well as the bridge MAC table.

Explanation

Correct Answer

C:

This corrective choice addresses EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery. Remote EVPN peers can learn the Ethernet segment's auto-discovery reachability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

That alternative applies to EVPN route target import instead. Only EVPN routes carrying permitted targets are imported into the intended service instance.

B:

That alternative applies to EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast instead. Remote VTEPs can learn members of the broadcast unknown-unicast multicast delivery set.

D:

That alternative applies to EVPN control plane discovery instead. The operator can distinguish remotely signaled EVPN reachability from local MAC learning.

Question 740

An enterprise network designer recommends: Use Ethernet auto-discovery EVPN Type 1 route signaling. Which situation most clearly calls for this action?

  1. An operator tries to find remote tenant MAC addresses solely by examining locally learned Ethernet frames.
  2. A VTEP must import only EVPN routes belonging to its authorized tenant rather than every EVPN route in the fabric.
  3. A new VXLAN bridge-domain participant needs to inform other VTEPs that it belongs to the broadcast and unknown-unicast replication set.
  4. An EVPN multihomed Ethernet segment needs signaling to advertise association with reachable provider edge routers.

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

This case requires the EVPN Type 1 Ethernet discovery action. Remote EVPN peers can learn the Ethernet segment's auto-discovery reachability.

Incorrect Answers

A:

This other case would be better matched to Inspect EVPN MAC/IP routes and associated BGP signaling as well as the bridge MAC table. The operator can distinguish remotely signaled EVPN reachability from local MAC learning.

B:

This other case would be better matched to Use matching BGP route-target import and export policies for the tenant service. Only EVPN routes carrying permitted targets are imported into the intended service instance.

C:

This other case would be better matched to Use EVPN Type 3 inclusive multicast Ethernet tag route signaling. Remote VTEPs can learn members of the broadcast unknown-unicast multicast delivery set.

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