JN0-692 試験問題を無料オンラインアクセス

Click the Exhibit button.


You are setting up a new CoS policy for your VPN customer. You configured the queues as shown in the exhibit, but you see drops in the EF queue. Interface utilization is around 1 Mbps.
What would you do to resolve the problem?

• A.Raise the transmit rate on the EF queue.
• B.Remove the strict-high parameter from the EF queue and add strict-high on the assured-forwarding (AF) queue.
• C.Lower the transmit rate on the AF queue.
• D.Lower the buffer size on the assured-forwarding (AF) queue.

The network design team has decided to activate multicast in the network. Auto-RP has been selected as the RP mechanism. Which PIM operational mode must be enabled in this network?

• A.source specific multicast
• B.dense mode
• C.sparse-dense mode
• D.sparse mode

Click the Exhibit button.

You are troubleshooting an interface where there are reports that ge-2/1/0 is not able to use more than 50% of its full bandwidth.
According to the output shown in the exhibit, which statement correctly describes the cause of this problem?

• A.The interface supports eight queues but is only using four queues.
• B.There is a 500 Mbps shaping rate configured.
• C.The exp-default classifier is in use on the interface.
• D.The input queues are using the default scheduler.

One of your router's OSPF adjacencies is down.
What are three reasons for this adjacency state change? (Choose Three)

• A.One of the physical interfaces has gone down.
• B.The OSPF hello value is the same on both routers.
• C.The controlling BFD session state has gone down.
• D.A filter has just been configured on one of the OSPF routers.
• E.The authentication key on both routers matches.

Click the Exhibit button.
-- Exhibit --
[edit]
user@router# show protocols bgp
group ebgp {
import block-martian;
family inet {
unicast;
}
peer-as 65530;
neighbor 172.22.135.37;
}
[edit]
user@router# show policy-options
policy-statement block-martian {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger reject;
route-filter 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger reject;
route-filter 191.255.0.0/16 orlonger reject;
route-filter 192.0.0.0/24 orlonger reject;
route-filter 223.255.255.0/24 orlonger reject;
route-filter 240.0.0.0/4 orlonger reject;
}
}
then reject;
}
[edit]

You have established a peering with an EBGP neighbor, but the peer's 172.0.0.0/8 routes show as hidden.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the problem?

• A.The import policy is rejecting all routes from the EBGP peer.
• B.The ebgp group configuration is missing an export policy needed to accept the routes.
• C.The ebgp group configuration for family inet unicast is causing a route mismatch.
• D.The route-filter used in the import policy is rejecting the 172.0.0.0/8 routes.