Testking JN0-694 mastering supplies re ready on your competencies plus expertise in The idea authorities a lengthy good reputation for individuals knowledgeable issues, some people asked for the particular Juniper qualifications. Juniper JN0-694 shows you which will getting ones targets. Testking JN0-694 also referred to as the particular Testking, not waste time and funds, as it can easily eliminate the many issues, you dont need to trap with various other software package of the identical characteristics.
2021 Oct JN0-694 training
Q1. -- Exhibit --
user@router# run show log bgp-test
Jun 10 23:50:43.056697 BGP SEND 192.168.133.1+179 -> 192.168.133.0+64925
Jun 10 23:50:43.056739 BGP SEND message type 3 (Notification) length 23
Jun 10 23:50:43.056760 BGP SEND Notification code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 7
(unsupported capability)
Jun 10 23:50:43.056781 BGP SEND Data (2 bytes): 00 04
Jun 10 23:50:52.215104 advertising receiving-speaker only capabilty to neighbor
::192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:50:52.215173 bgp_senD.sending 59 bytes to ::192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:50:52.215200
Jun 10 23:50:52.215200 BGP SEND ::192.168.133.1+179 -> ::192.168.133.0+57107
Jun 10 23:50:52.215233 BGP SEND message type 1 (Open) length 59
Jun 10 23:50:52.215256 BGP SEND version 4 as 23456 holdtime 90 id 10.200.1.1 parmlen
30
Jun 10 23:50:52.215276 BGP SEND MP capability AFI=2, SAFI=1
Jun 10 23:50:52.215294 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=128
Jun 10 23:50:52.215312 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=2
Jun 10 23:50:52.215332 BGP SEND Restart capability, code=64, time=120, flags=
Jun 10 23:50:52.215353 BGP SEND 4 Byte AS-Path capability (65), as_num 2123456789
Jun 10 23:50:52.216018
Jun 10 23:50:52.216018 BGP RECV ::192.168.133.0+57107 -> ::192.168.133.1+179
Jun 10 23:50:52.216058 BGP RECV message type 3 (Notification) length 21
Jun 10 23:50:52.216079 BGP RECV Notification code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 2
(bad peer AS number)
Jun 10 23:51:15.058112 advertising receiving-speaker only capabilty to neighbor
192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:51:15.058192 bgp_senD.sending 59 bytes to 192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:51:15.058217 Jun 10 23:51:15.058217 BGP SEND 192.168.133.1+50083 -> 192.168.133.0+179 Jun 10 23:51:15.058250 BGP SEND message type 1 (Open) length 59 Jun 10 23:51:15.058273 BGP SEND version 4 as 65001 holdtime 90 id 10.200.1.1 parmlen
30 Jun 10 23:51:15.058294 BGP SEND MP capability AFI=1, SAFI=128 Jun 10 23:51:15.058312 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=128 Jun 10 23:51:15.058331 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=2 Jun 10 23:51:15.058386 BGP SEND Restart capability, code=64, time=120, flags= Jun 10 23:51:15.058416 BGP SEND 4 Byte AS-Path capability (65), as_num 65001 Jun 10 23:51:15.058651 bgp_pp_recv:3140: NOTIFICATION sent to 192.168.133.0
(External AS 300): code 6 (Cease) subcode 7 (Connection collision resolution), Reason: dropping 192.168.133.0 (External AS 300), connection collision prefers 192.168.133.0+53170 (proto)
Jun 10 23:51:15.058680 bgp_senD.sending 21 bytes to 192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:51:15.058702
Jun 10 23:51:15.058702 BGP SEND 192.168.133.1+50083 -> 192.168.133.0+179
Jun 10 23:51:15.058735 BGP SEND message type 3 (Notification) length 21
Jun 10 23:51:15.058755 BGP SEND Notification code 6 (Cease) subcode 7 (Connection
collision resolution)
Jun 10 23:51:15.059557 advertising receiving-speaker only capabilty to neighbor
192.168.133.0 (External AS 300) Jun 10 23:51:15.059594 bgp_senD.sending 59 bytes to 192.168.133.0 (External AS 300) Jun 10 23:51:15.059617 Jun 10 23:51:15.059617 BGP SEND 192.168.133.1+179 -> 192.168.133.0+53170 Jun 10 23:51:15.059649 BGP SEND message type 1 (Open) length 59 Jun 10 23:51:15.059671 BGP SEND version 4 as 65001 holdtime 90 id 10.200.1.1 parmlen
30 Jun 10 23:51:15.059691 BGP SEND MP capability AFI=1, SAFI=128
Jun 10 23:51:15.059709 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=128
Jun 10 23:51:15.059727 BGP SEND Refresh capability, code=2
Jun 10 23:51:15.059747 BGP SEND Restart capability, code=64, time=120, flags=
Jun 10 23:51:15.059768 BGP SEND 4 Byte AS-Path capability (65), as_num 65001
Jun 10 23:51:15.060383 bgp_process_caps: mismatch NLRI with 192.168.133.0 (External
AS 300): peer: (1) us: (4)
Jun 10 23:51:15.060445 bgp_process_caps:2578: NOTIFICATION sent to 192.168.133.0
(External AS 300): code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 7 (unsupported capability) value 4
Jun 10 23:51:15.060470 bgp_senD.sending 23 bytes to 192.168.133.0 (External AS 300)
Jun 10 23:51:15.060492
Jun 10 23:51:15.060492 BGP SEND 192.168.133.1+179 -> 192.168.133.0+53170
Jun 10 23:51:15.060556 BGP SEND message type 3 (Notification) length 23
Jun 10 23:51:15.060578 BGP SEND Notification code 2 (Open Message Error) subcode 7
(unsupported capability)
Jun 10 23:51:15.060600 BGP SEND Data (2 bytes): 00 04
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the IPv4 BGP peering to stay in an active state?
A. The peer AS is incorrect.
B. The peer does not support 4-byte AS values.
C. The peer has an NLRI mismatch.
D. The peer has an incorrect IP address.
Answer: C
Q2. 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 MSTP with two MSTI regions and split the VLAN range between them.
B. Configure VSTP with two VLAN groups and split the VLAN range between them.
C. Configure two RSTP instances and split the VLAN range between them.
D. Configure STP and RSTP and split the VLAN range between them.
Answer: A
Q3. -- Exhibit–
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
The exhibit shows a small switched network, some details about the MSTP configuration in the network, and the VLANs that are trunked over each link. When Switch2 reboots, users in VLAN 400 on Switch3 report that they lose connectivity to resources in VLAN 400 on Switch4.
What is the cause of this problem?
A. There are mismatched bridge priorities.
B. There is a mismatched MSTP configuration name.
C. VLAN 400 is not trunked between Switch1 and Switch3.
D. VLAN 400 is trunked between Switch3 and Switch4.
Answer: C
Q4. -- Exhibit–
-- Exhibit --Click the Exhibit button.
You are troubleshooting an OSPF adjacency problem between R1 and R2.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing this OSPF adjacency problem?
A. There is a hello interval mismatch.
B. There is a dead interval mismatch.
C. There is an MTU mismatch.
D. There is an LSA refresh timer mismatch.
Answer: C
Q5. Your switch is experiencing a problem where a port that should have only one host connected occasionally shows that multiple MAC addresses are being learned.
Which configuration setting would ensure that no extra hosts can join the network using this switch port?
A. mac-limit
B. no-mac-learning
C. persistent-learning
D. bpdu-block-on-edge
Answer: D
Latest JN0-694 download:
Q6. -- Exhibit --
Jun 12 02:56:06 R1 rpd[60735]: RPD_OSPF_NBRDOWN: OSPF neighbor 10.50.10.25 (realm ospf-v2 fe-0/0/4.0 area 0.0.0.0) state changed from Full to Init due to 1WayRcvd (event reason: neighbor is in one-way mode)
Jun 12 02:59:36 R1 rpd[60735]: RPD_OSPF_NBRUP: OSPF neighbor 10.50.10.25 (realm ospf-v2 fe-0/0/4.0 area 0.0.0.0) state changed from Init to ExStart due to 2WayRcvd (event reason: neighbor detected this router)
Jun 12 02:59:36 R1 rpd[60735]: RPD_OSPF_NBRUP: OSPF neighbor 10.50.10.25 (realm ospf-v2 fe-0/0/4.0 area 0.0.0.0) state changed from Exchange to Full due to ExchangeDone (event reason: DBD exchange of slave completed)
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You notice that there is a problem with the OSPF adjacency between two routers, R1 and R2. The relevant system logs from R1 are shown in the exhibit.
What would cause this behavior?
A. R2 was dropping R1's OSPF hello packets.
B. R1 was dropping R2's OSPF hello packets.
C. R1's interface went down and came back up.
D. There is an OSPF hello timer mismatch between the two routers.
Answer: A
Q7. 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. One of the devices has a misconfigured BGP peer address.
B. One or both of the connected interfaces are missing the family iso statement.
C. OSPF has a lower route preference than BGP.
D. A firewall filter on one of the interfaces is blocking TCP traffic.
Answer: B,C
Q8. -- Exhibit– -- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You are asked to configure a multihop EBGP peering to a loopback address of your ISP. The peering does not establish, and the ISP has verified that the settings are correct on their side.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the problem?
A. The peer-as parameter is misconfigured.
B. The local-address parameter is misconfigured.
C. The static route is misconfigured.
D. The neighbor parameter is misconfigured.
Answer: C
Q9. -- Exhibit --{master:0}[edit ethernet-switching-options secure-access-port]
user@switch# show
interface ge-0/0/1.0 {
static-ip 172.27.0.2 vlan v11 mac 00:0c:29:b5:89:7c;
no-dhcp-trusted;
}
vlan v11 {
arp-inspection;
}
interface ge-0/0/2.0 {
dhcp-trusted;
}
user@switch> show log messages | match arp
Feb 8 14:31:45 switch eswd[1280]: ESWD_DAI_FAILED.3 ARP_REQUEST received, interface ge-0/0/1.0[index 73], vlan v11[index 5], sender ip/mac 172.27.0.2/00:0c:29:b5:89:7d, receiver ip/mac 172.27.0.1/00:00:00:00:00:00
Feb 8 14:34:05 switch eswd[1280]: ESWD_DAI_FAILED.3 ARP_REQUEST received, interface ge-0/0/1.0[index 73], vlan v11[index 5], sender ip/mac 172.27.0.2/00:0c:29:b5:89:7d, receiver ip/mac 172.27.0.1/00:00:00:00:00:00
Feb 8 14:36:05 switch eswd[1280]: ESWD_DAI_FAILED.3 ARP_REQUEST received, interface ge-0/0/1.0[index 73], vlan v11[index 5], sender ip/mac 172.27.0.2/00:0c:29:b5:89:7d, receiver ip/mac 172.27.0.1/00:00:00:00:00:00
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
You have been asked to troubleshoot a problem where a user is not able to send traffic through your switch. While troubleshooting, you see the log messages shown in the exhibit.
What is causing the problem?
A. The eswd process has been corrupted.
B. The receiver MAC in the packets is undefined.
C. The defined MAC address is misconfigured.
D. The static IP address is misconfigured.
Answer: C
Q10. -- 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. accepted with metric of 5
B. accepted with metric of 10
C. accepted with metric of 20
D. rejected
Answer: C