Online Access Free JN0-694 Practice Test

Your Layer 2 network uses VLAN IDs 100 through 400 and you are required to load-balance these VLANs between two different root bridges. You are currently using the default RSTP settings and notice that all VLANs are using the same root bridge.
How do you ensure the VLANs are load-balanced between two root bridges?

• A.Configure two RSTP instances and split the VLAN range between them.
• B.Configure MSTP with two MSTI regions and split the VLAN range between them.
• C.Configure STP and RSTP and split the VLAN range between them.
• D.Configure VSTP with two VLAN groups and split the VLAN range between them.

Two neighboring routers are able to form an OSPF adjacency, but are not able to establish an IBGP neighborship.
What are two reasons for the IBGP neighborship problem? (Choose two.)

• A.OSPF has a lower route preference than BGP.
• B.One or both of the connected interfaces are missing the family iso statement.
• C.One of the devices has a misconfigured BGP peer address.
• D.A firewall filter on one of the interfaces is blocking TCP traffic.

You are implementing Q-in-Q tunneling on an EX Series switch. You want the tunnel to
support all C-VLANs; however, only some VLANs are able to send traffic across the tunnel. Switch-1 has the following configuration:
[edit vlans]
user@Switch-1# show
v100 {
vlan-id 100;
interface {
ge-0/0/0.10;
ge-0/0/1.20;
}
dot1q-tunneling {
customer-vlans [ ];
}
}
What would solve this problem?

• A.Implement RSTP.
• B.Q-in-Q tunneling will not work in this scenario; use a Layer 2 VPN instead.
• C.Add family ethernet-switching to the tunnel-side interface on Switch-1.
• D.Remove the customer-vlans statement.

-- Exhibit --
protocols {
bgp {
group isps {
type external;
peer-as 13090194;
multipath multiple-as;
neighbor ;
neighbor ;
}
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
The exhibit shows the complete BGP configuration for a router. The network operator reports that both peering sessions are up, but the router is not conducting per-flow load balancing over the connections to these two peers.
What are two causes for this behavior? (Choose two.)

• A.The BGP peers are not sending identical advertisements over the two sessions.
• B.The forwarding-table export policy is not configured to cause per-flow load balancing.
• C.The router has different IGP metrics to these BGP peers.
• D.The multiple-as parameter causes BGP to only choose multiple paths to different ASs, rather than multiple paths to the same AS.

-- Exhibit --
policy-statement test_route_filter {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 longer;
route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer {
metric 5;
accept;
}
route-filter 192.168.0.0/8 orlonger accept;
}
then {
metric 10;
accept;
}
}
term 2 {
then {
metric 20;
accept;
}
}
}
-- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
Given test route 192.168.1.0/24 and the configuration shown in the exhibit, what is the expected result?

• A.rejected
• B.accepted with metric of 5
• C.accepted with metric of 10
• D.accepted with metric of 20