Juniper JN0-664 Dumps Questions Answers

Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) is a link-state routing protocol used to move information efficiently within a computer network. It uses a series of Protocol Data Units (PDUs) to manage the network's topology and ensure consistency across all routers in the network. Specifically, Link State PDUs (LSPs), Complete Sequence Number PDUs (CSNPs), and Partial Sequence Number PDUs (PSNPs) play crucial roles in this process.

1. **PSNPs (Partial Sequence Number PDUs)**:

- **Acknowledge a received LSP**: PSNPs are used to acknowledge the receipt of LSPs. When a router receives an LSP, it sends a PSNP back to the sender to confirm that the LSP has been received.

- **Request a missing LSP**: PSNPs are also used to request missing LSPs. If a router identifies a missing LSP based on sequence numbers, it can send a PSNP to request the specific LSP from its neighbors.

2. **CSNPs (Complete Sequence Number PDUs)**:

- **Summarize LSPs**: CSNPs are used to summarize all the LSPs known to a router. They are typically sent at regular intervals to provide a complete list of LSPs in a database. They are not used to acknowledge or request specific LSPs but provide an overview of all LSPs for database synchronization.

Based on this understanding, let's evaluate the statements:

- **A. PSNPs are used to acknowledge a received LSP.**

- Correct. PSNPs serve the purpose of acknowledging LSPs received from other routers.

- **B. CSNPs are used to acknowledge a received LSP.**

- Incorrect. CSNPs are not used for acknowledging LSPs; they are used to provide a summary of all LSPs.

- **C. CSNPs are used to request a missing LSP.**

- Incorrect. CSNPs are not used to request missing LSPs; this is the role of PSNPs.

- **D. PSNPs are used to request a missing LSP.**

- Correct. PSNPs are used to request specific missing LSPs when a router detects that it is missing information.

**Conclusion**:

The correct statements about IS-IS are:

**A. PSNPs are used to acknowledge a received LSP.**

**D. PSNPs are used to request a missing LSP.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on IS-IS: [IS-IS Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html)

- RFC 1195, Use of OSI IS-IS for Routing in TCP/IP and Dual Environments: [RFC 1195](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1195) which details the operation and use of IS-IS, including the roles of PSNPs and CSNPs.

the default behavior for iBGP is to propagate EBGP-learned prefixes without changing the next-hop. This can cause issues if the next-hop is not reachable via the IGP. One solution is to use the next-hop self command on R4, which will change the next-hop attribute to its own loopback address. This way, R5 can reach the next-hop via the IGP and install the route in its routing table.

Another solution is to add the external interface prefix (120.0.4.16/30) to the IGP routing tables of R4 and R5. This will also make the next-hop reachable via the IGP and allow R5 to use the route. According to 2, this is a possible workaround for a pure IP network, but it may not work well for an MPLS network.

The reason why the route is being hidden is that R5 cannot reach the BGP next hop 10.0.0.1, which is the address of R1. R5 does not have a route to 10.0.0.0/24 in its routing table, and neither does R4. Therefore, R5 cannot resolve the BGP next hop and marks the route as hidden.

There are two solutions that will solve this problem:

Option A: On R4, create a policy to change the BGP next hop to itself and apply it to IBGP as an export policy. This way, R5 will receive the route with a next hop of 172.16.1.2, which is reachable via the IGP. This solution is also known as next-hop-self1.

Option B: Add the external interface prefix to the IGP routing tables. This way, R4 and R5 will learn a route to 10.0.0.0/24 via the IGP and be able to resolve the BGP next hop. This solution is also known as recursive lookup2.

Option C is not correct because adding the internal interface prefix to the BGP routing tables will not help R5 reach the BGP next hop 10.0.0.1.

Option D is not correct because changing the BGP next hop to 172.16.1.1 on R4 will not help R5 either, since R5 does not have a route to 172.16.1.1 in its routing table.

References: 1: Configuring Next-Hop-Self for IBGP Peers 2: Understanding Recursive Lookup

The problem in this scenario is that CE-1 is configured with an incorrect peer AS number for its BGP session with PE-1. The CLI output shows that CE-1 is using AS 65531 as its local AS number and AS 65530 as its peer AS number. However, PE-1 is using AS 65530 as its local AS number and AS 65531 as its peer AS number. This causes a mismatch in the BGP OPEN messages and prevents the BGP session from being established. To solve this problem, CE-1 should configure its peer AS number as 65530 under [edit protocols bgp group external] hierarchy level.