A is correct because generated routes require a contributing route. A contributing route is a route that matches the destination prefix of the generated route and has a valid next hop. A generated route is only installed in the routing table if there is at least one contributing route available. This ensures that the generated route is reachable and useful. If there is no contributing route, the generated route is not added to the routing table.
B is correct because generated routes show a next hop in the routing table. A generated route inherits the next hop of its primary contributing route, which is the most preferred route among all the contributing routes. The next hop of the generated route can be either an IP address or an interface name, depending on the type of the contributing route. The next hop of the generated route can also be modified by a routing policy.

The L column in this output identifies which IS-IS levels are active on each interface, using the standard bitmask where 1 represents Level 1 only and 3 represents both Level 1 and Level 2 combined. Interface ge-0/0/2.0 shows an L value of 1 and its Level 2 DR field explicitly reads Disabled, meaning Level 2 has not been enabled on that circuit at all; consequently no Level 2 adjacency can ever form there, regardless of what the neighboring router advertises, which confirms that statement as correct. The lo0.0 loopback interface shows Passive under both the Level 1 DR and Level 2 DR columns. A passive IS-IS interface is deliberately excluded from adjacency formation -- no IIH PDUs are sent or expected on it -- but its associated prefix is still injected into the router's own LSP and flooded throughout the area, which is precisely why loopbacks are configured as passive: to guarantee the router ID/loopback prefix is reachable network-wide without wasting adjacency overhead on an interface with no real neighbor. This confirms that R3 advertises its loopback address, while ruling out the claim that the loopback is used to form an adjacency. Regarding designated routers, all circuits shown here report 'Point to Point' rather than an actual DR system ID, because DR election in IS-IS is a construct exclusive to broadcast (LAN) circuits; point-to-point circuits never elect a DR, so the first statement is false.

Correctly blocking SSH traffic originating from a specific network requires matching three precise conditions simultaneously in the from clause: the traffic's source-address must equal the
192.168.10.0/24 network, since the requirement is to block traffic coming from that network rather than traffic destined to it; the protocol must be explicitly set to tcp, since SSH operates exclusively over TCP; and the destination-port must be set to 22, because an inbound SSH connection request is always directed at the well-known SSH listening port 22 on the receiving side, regardless of which ephemeral source port the initiating client happens to use. The first option satisfies all three conditions correctly and pairs them with a discard action, cleanly dropping matching traffic. The second option incorrectly substitutes destination-address for source- address, which would match traffic heading toward that /24 rather than traffic originating from it, inverting the intended match direction. The third option incorrectly uses source-port 22 instead of destination-port 22; since the SSH client's source port is a randomly assigned ephemeral value rather than a fixed 22, this term would almost never match real SSH session-initiation traffic. The fourth option relies on a service ssh match condition, which is not valid syntax within the standard Junos firewall filter grammar for family inet; there is no such application-based keyword available at that hierarchy, making the term invalid regardless of the reject action chosen.