JN0-664 Service Provider Professional (JNCIP-SP) Questions and Answers

In the context of Layer 3 VPNs (L3VPN) using MPLS, the routing information for different customers (VPNs) is typically stored in separate routing tables (VRFs). When you want to verify that PE2 is receiving the VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, you need to check the appropriate VRF routing table on PE2.

1. **Option A: show route table customer-c.inet.0**

- This command displays the routing table specific to Customer C's VRF.

- Since we want to verify that PE2 has received the VPN routes for Customer C, this is the most appropriate command to use.

- It allows us to see all routes learned for Customer C's VPN.

2. **Option B: show route table bgp.l3vpn.0**

- This command displays the BGP routing table for all L3VPN routes.

- While this includes routes for Customer C, it also includes routes for all other VPNs, making it harder to isolate the specific information for Customer C.

- This command is more useful for an overall view of BGP L3VPN routes rather than for a specific customer's VRF.

3. **Option C: show route summary**

- This command provides a summary of the routes in all routing tables.

- It doesn't give detailed information about the specific routes for Customer C's VRF.

- It's useful for a high-level overview but not for verifying specific customer routes.

4. **Option D: show route table inet.0**

- This command shows the global routing table, not the VRF-specific tables.

- The global routing table doesn't contain the VPN-specific routes that are stored in the VRF tables.

- Therefore, it won't help in verifying the routes for Customer C.

**Conclusion**:

To verify that PE2 is receiving VPN routes for Customer C from PE1, the most appropriate command is to check the specific VRF routing table for Customer C. Hence, the correct answer is:

**A. show route table customer-c.inet.0**

**References**:

- Junos OS documentation on MPLS VPNs: [Junos MPLS VPNs Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-vpns.html)

- Command Reference for Routing Tables: [Junos OS Routing Tables Command Reference](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/reference/command-summary/show-route-table.html)

OSPF uses different types of LSAs to describe different aspects of the network topology. Type 1 LSAs are also known as router LSAs, and they describe the links and interfaces of a router within an area. Type 3 LSAs are also known as summary LSAs, and they describe routes to networks outside an area but within the same autonomous system (AS). By default, OSPF will summarize routes from Type 1 LSAs into Type 3 LSAs when advertising them across area boundaries .

Class of Service (CoS) in networking is used to manage traffic by classifying, scheduling, and sometimes modifying packets to ensure network performance and Quality of Service (QoS). Different CoS components are used to achieve these goals. Let's analyze each option to determine which CoS component allows you to alter class-of-service values on the outbound interface of an edge router.

1. **Output Policer**:

- Policing is used to control the rate of traffic sent to or from a network interface. It can drop or remark traffic that exceeds a certain rate.

- Policing is not typically used to alter CoS values but to enforce traffic limits.

2. **Scheduler**:

- A scheduler is responsible for managing the order in which packets are transmitted out of an interface based on their CoS markings. It can allocate bandwidth and prioritize traffic.

- The scheduler manages how packets are queued and sent but does not alter the CoS values of packets.

3. **Rewrite Rules**:

- Rewrite rules are used to modify the CoS values of packets, such as DSCP (Differentiated Services Code Point) or 802.1p bits, as they exit an interface.

- Rewrite rules can alter the class-of-service values in the packet headers to match the desired policies of the outbound interface.

- Therefore, rewrite rules are the correct component for altering CoS values on an outbound interface.

4. **Forwarding Classes**:

- Forwarding classes are used to categorize packets into different traffic classes within a router for QoS handling.

- They help in defining how packets should be treated by the scheduler but do not directly modify the CoS values.

**Conclusion**:

To alter class-of-service values in packets on the outbound interface of an edge router, the correct CoS component to use is:

**C. rewrite rules**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on CoS: [Class of Service Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/class-of-service-overview.html)

- Junos OS CoS Configuration Guide: [Rewrite Rules](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/class-of-service-rewrite-rules.html)

In the provided exhibit, the output of the `show pim join extensive 232.1.1.1` command is shown. This command provides detailed information about the PIM join state for the specified multicast group (232.1.1.1) on the router R1. To determine the correct statements regarding the multicast traffic, let's analyze the output and the terms involved:

1. **ASM vs. SSM**:

- **ASM (Any-Source Multicast)**: In ASM, receivers are interested in receiving multicast traffic from any source sending to a particular multicast group.

- **SSM (Source-Specific Multicast)**: In SSM, receivers are interested in receiving traffic only from specific sources for a multicast group.

- **Group Address Range**:

- ASM uses the range 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255.

- SSM uses the range 232.0.0.0 to 232.255.255.255.

Since the group address 232.1.1.1 falls within the SSM range (232.0.0.0/8), there might be confusion. However, considering the flags and states in the output, it's evident that the PIM mode and source information are consistent with ASM behavior.

2. **Multicast Trees**:

- **RPT (Rendezvous Point Tree)**: Multicast traffic initially uses the RPT, where the Rendezvous Point (RP) acts as an intermediate point.

- **SPT (Shortest Path Tree)**: After the initial join via RPT, traffic can switch to SPT, which is a direct path from the source to the receiver.

3. **Output Analysis**:

- **Flags**:

- The flags `sparse, rp-tree, wildcard` indicate that the group 232.1.1.1 is currently using RPT. This is typical for ASM, where traffic initially goes through the RP.

- The flags `sparse, spt` indicate that for the source 172.16.1.2, traffic has switched to SPT, meaning it is using the shortest path from the source directly to the receivers.

**Conclusion**:

Based on the analysis:

- **A. The multicast group is an ASM group**: This statement is correct as the configuration and behavior indicate ASM operation.

- **B. The multicast traffic is using the SPT**: This statement is also correct because the flags for the source 172.16.1.2 indicate that the traffic is using the SPT.

Thus, the correct answers are:

**A. The multicast group is an ASM group.**

**B. The multicast traffic is using the SPT.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks PIM Documentation: [PIM Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/pim-overview.html)

- Junos OS Multicast Routing Configuration Guide: [Multicast Routing Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/multicast-routing.html)

IS-IS supports two levels of routing: Level 1 (intra-area) and Level 2 (interarea). An IS-IS router can be either Level 1 only, Level 2 only, or both Level 1 and Level 2. A router that is both Level 1 and Level 2 is called a Level 1-2 router. A Level 1-2 router sends separate hello messages for each level on both point-to-point and broadcast interfaces1. A point-to-point interface provides a connection between a single source and a single destination. A broadcast interface behaves as if the router is connected to a LAN.

In the exhibit, we see an internal BGP (iBGP) setup within AS 65512, and an external BGP (eBGP) connection between R3 and ISP-A (AS 65511). The questions focus on the behavior of BGP routes advertised from R3 to R1 within the same AS.

1. **BGP Next-Hop Attribute (Option A and D)**:

- In iBGP, the next-hop attribute is **not** changed when a route is advertised to another iBGP peer. This means that when R3 advertises a route to R1, it retains the original next-hop value as learned from the eBGP peer (ISP-A).

- Therefore, Option D is correct: "By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by R3 before being sent to R1."

2. **BGP Attributes (Option B and C)**:

- BGP attributes such as local preference, AS-path, and others are crucial for BGP route selection. The local preference attribute is used within an AS to indicate the preferred path for outbound traffic.

- When R3 advertises BGP routes to R1, it includes the local preference value assigned to those routes. This value is not removed and is propagated within the iBGP mesh.

- Therefore, Option C is correct: "By default, the BGP local-preference value that is assigned on R3 is advertised to R1."

**References**:

- Juniper Networks documentation on BGP behavior provides detailed insights into the propagation of BGP attributes within iBGP and eBGP contexts. Specifically, the Junos OS documentation covers the default behavior of next-hop and local preference attributes in BGP configurations.

- Junos OS BGP Configuration Guide: [Junos OS BGP Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/bgp-overview.html)

- For a deeper understanding of BGP attributes and their default behaviors, the "Juniper Networks Day One: Exploring BGP" book is an excellent resource.

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

A sham link is a logical link between two PE routers that belong to the same OSPF area but are connected through an L3VPN. A sham link makes the PE routers appear as if they are directly connected, and prevents OSPF from preferring an intra-area back door link over the VPN backbone. A sham link creates an OSPF multihop neighborship between the PE routers using TCP port 646. The PEs exchange Type 1 OSPF LSAs instead of Type 3 OSPF LSAs for the L3VPN routes, which allows OSPF to use the correct metric for route selection1.

BGP policy framework is a set of tools that allows you to control the flow of routing information and apply routing policies based on various criteria. BGP policy framework consists of several components, such as route maps, prefix lists, community lists, AS path lists, and route filters. Route maps are used to define routing policies by matching certain conditions and applying certain actions. Prefix lists are used to filter routes based on their prefixes. Community lists are used to filter routes based on their community attributes. AS path lists are used to filter routes based on their AS path attributes. Route filters are used to filter routes based on their prefix length or range3. In this question, we have a route map named ISP-A that has two clauses: clause 10 and clause 20. Clause 10 matches any route with a prefix length between 8 and 24 bits and sets the local preference to 200. Clause 20 matches any route with a prefix of 224.7.7.7/32 and rejects it. The route map is applied inbound on the BGP neighborship with ISP-A. Based on this configuration, the correct statement is that joins for group 224.7.7.7 are always rejected, regardless of the group count. This is because clause 20 explicitly denies any route with a prefix of 224.7.7.7/32, which corresponds to the multicast group 224.7.7.7.

The resolve-vpn parameter is a BGP option that allows a router to resolve labeled VPN-IPv4 routes using unlabeled IPv4 routes received from another BGP peer with family inet labeled-unicast configured. This option enables interprovider VPNs without requiring MPLS labels between ASBRs or using VRF tables on ASBRs. In this scenario, you need to configure the resolve-vpn parameter under [edit protocols bgp group external family inet labeled-unicast] hierarchy level on both ASBRs.

BGP route reflectors are BGP routers that are allowed to ignore the IBGP loop avoidance rule and advertise IBGP learned routes to other IBGP peers under specific conditions. BGP route reflectors can reduce the number of IBGP sessions and updates in a network by eliminating the need for a full mesh of IBGP peers. BGP route reflectors can have three types of peerings:

EBGP neighbor: A BGP router that belongs to a different autonomous system (AS) than the route reflector.

IBGP client neighbor: An IBGP router that receives reflected routes from the route reflector. A client does not need to peer with other clients or non-clients.

IBGP non-client neighbor: An IBGP router that does not receive reflected routes from the route reflector. A non-client needs to peer with other non-clients and the route reflector.

In the exhibit, we can see that RR1 and RR2 are route reflectors in the same AS with reachability redundancy. They have two types of peerings: EBGP neighbors (R1 and R4) and IBGP client neighbors (Client1, Client2, and Client3). RR1 and RR2 are also peered with each other as IBGP non-client neighbors.

The problem in this scenario is that R1 and R8 are not receiving each other’s routes because of private AS numbers in the AS path. Private AS numbers are not globally unique and are not advertised to external BGP peers. To solve this problem, you need to do the following:

Configure loops on routers in AS 65412 and advertise-peer-as on routers in AS 64498. This allows R5 and R6 to advertise their own AS number (65412) instead of their peer’s AS number (64498) when sending updates to R7 and R8. This prevents a loop detection issue that would cause R7 and R8 to reject the routes from R5 and R62.

Configure remove-private on advertisements from AS 64497 toward AS 64498 and from AS 64500 toward AS 64499. This removes any private AS numbers from the AS path before sending updates to external BGP peers. This allows R2 and R3 to receive the routes from R1 and R4, respectively3.

Type 1: When Type value is 1, the Administrator field is 4-bytes and Assigned Number field is 2-bytes. The Administrator field should be set to the IP address (public IP addresses should be used). The Assigned Number field contains a number from a numbering space that is administered by the enterprise to which the IP address has been assigned by the appropriate authority.

The correct order of packet flow through configurable components in the Junos OS CoS features is as follows:

Behavior Aggregate Classifier: This component uses a single field in a packet header to classify traffic into different forwarding classes and loss priorities based on predefined or user-defined values.

Input Policer: This component applies rate-limiting and marking actions to incoming traffic based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

Multifield Classifier: This component uses multiple fields in a packet header to classify traffic into different forwarding classes and loss priorities based on user-defined values and filters.

Forwarding Policy Options: This component applies actions such as load balancing, filtering, or routing to traffic based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

Fabric Scheduler: This component schedules traffic across the switch fabric based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

Output Policer: This component applies rate-limiting and marking actions to outgoing traffic based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

Scheduler/Shaper/RED: This component schedules, shapes, and drops traffic at the egress interface based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

Rewrite Marker: This component rewrites the code-point bits of packets leaving an interface based on the forwarding class and loss priority assigned by the classifier.

BGP add-path is a feature that allows the advertisement of multiple paths through the same peering session for the same prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous paths. This behavior promotes path diversity and reduces multi-exit discriminator (MED) oscillations. BGP add-path is implemented by adding a path identifier to each path in the NLRI. The path identifier can be considered as something similar to a route distinguisher in VPNs, except that a path ID can apply to any address family. Path IDs are unique to a peering session and are generated for each network3. In this question, we have a route reflector (RR) that receives two routes for the same prefix (192.168.0.0/16) from an EBGP neighbor. By default, the RR will only advertise its best path to its clients (R1 and R2). However, we want R1 and R2 to receive both routes from the RR. To achieve this, we need to configure BGP add-path on the RR and enable it to send multiple paths for the same prefix to its clients.

In IS-IS, a designated intermediate system (DIS) is a router that is elected on a multi-access network segment (such as Ethernet) to perform some functions on behalf of other routers on the same segment. A DIS is responsible for sending network link-state advertisements (LSPs), which describe all the routers attached to the network. These LSPs are flooded throughout a single area. A DIS also generates pseudonode LSPs, which represent the multi-access network as a single node in the link-state database. A DIS election is based on the priority value configured on each router’s interface connected to the multi-access network. The priority value ranges from 0 to 127, with higher values indicating higher priority. The router with the highest priority becomes the DIS for the area (Level 1, Level 2, or both). If routers have the same priority, then the router with the highest MAC address is elected as the DIS. By default, routers have a priority value of 64. On a multi-access network, each router only forms an adjacency to the DIS, not to every other router on the segment. This reduces the amount of hello packets and LSP

To transport IPv6 traffic over an IPv4-based MPLS network using BGP, you need to configure two address families: family inet6 labeled-unicast and family inet6 unicast. The former is used to exchange IPv6 routes with MPLS labels between PE routers, and the latter is used to exchange IPv6 routes without labels between PE and CE routers. The mpis ipv6-tunneling command enables the PE routers to encapsulate the IPv6 packets with an MPLS label stack and an IPv4 header before sending them over the MPLS network.

BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN is a type of VPN that uses BGP to distribute VPN labels and information for Layer 2 connectivity between sites over an MPLS network. BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN requires the support of the l2vpn NLRI on all core BGP devices1. The l2vpn NLRI is a new address family that carries Layer 2 VPN information such as the VPN identifier, the attachment circuit identifier, and the route distinguisher. The l2vpn NLRI is used for both auto-discovery and signaling of Layer 2 VPNs2. In this scenario, we are configuring a BGP signaled Layer 2 VPN across an MPLS enabled core network. Therefore, we need to ensure that all core BGP devices support the l2vpn NLRI.

References: 1: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-l2/topics/concept/vpn-layer-2-overview.html  2: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/mp_l2_vpns/configuration/xe-16/mp-l2-vpns-xe-16-book/vpls-bgp-signaling-l2vpn-inter-as-option-a.html

Route reflection is a BGP feature that allows a router to reflect routes learned from one IBGP peer to another IBGP peer, without requiring a full-mesh IBGP topology. Route reflectors do not change any existing BGP attributes by default when advertising routes, unless explicitly configured to do so. A BGP peer does not require any configuration changes to become a route reflector client, only the route reflector needs to be configured with the client parameter under [edit protocols bgp group group-name neighbor neighbor-address] hierarchy level.

In an L2VPN scenario, the provider network connects two customer edge (CE) devices across a Layer 2 virtual private network. Let's analyze how OSPF operates in this setup.

1. **OSPF Neighborship in L2VPN**:

- An L2VPN provides a Layer 2 connection between two sites, making it transparent to Layer 3 protocols like OSPF. This means the CEs can form OSPF adjacencies directly with each other as if they were on the same local network.

2. **OSPF Configuration on CEs and PEs**:

- **Statement A: OSPF neighborship is formed between the CEs and PEs**:

- Incorrect. In an L2VPN, the provider's network is transparent to the OSPF running on the CEs. OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, not between the CEs and PEs.

- **Statement B: The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different**:

- Correct. Since OSPF adjacencies form directly between the CEs and not between CEs and PEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs can be different. The provider network acts as a transparent bridge, and OSPF doesn't see the PEs.

- **Statement C: The CE and PE OSPF areas must match**:

- Incorrect. As noted above, because the OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs do not need to match.

- **Statement D: OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs**:

- Correct. The L2VPN makes the connection between the two CEs appear as a direct Layer 2 link, allowing them to form an OSPF adjacency directly.

**Conclusion**:

Given the above analysis, the correct statements are:

**B. The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different.**

**D. OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on L2VPNs: [Configuring Layer 2 VPNs](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer-2-vpns-configuring.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Junos OS OSPF Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

For a Layer 3 VPN to function correctly, an MPLS Label Switched Path (LSP) must be established between the Provider Edge (PE) routers. The MPLS LSP is necessary for the transport of VPN traffic across the service provider's backbone network. If the MPLS LSP is not established, the PE routers cannot forward the VPN traffic properly, causing the routes to be hidden in the BGP routing table.

Here’s a breakdown of why the other options are less likely:

A. The routes use overlapping IP addresses.

Overlapping IP addresses might cause issues with route advertisement and selection, but they would not typically cause routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table.

C. There is a routing loop in the service provider backbone.

While routing loops are problematic, they would not specifically cause the routes to be hidden in the bgp.l3vpn.0 table. Routing loops would more likely result in dropped packets or increased latency.

D. Route targets are not configured.

Incorrect or missing route target configuration would prevent routes from being imported into the correct VRF, but it would not usually result in the routes being hidden. Instead, they would simply not appear in the relevant VRF.

Thus, the absence of an established MPLS LSP is the most plausible cause for the routes being hidden.