JN0-694 試験問題を無料オンラインアクセス

-- Exhibit -user@R1> show class-of-service interface ge-0/0/0 Physical interface: ge-0/0/0, Index: 134 Queues supporteD. 8, Queues in use: 4 Scheduler map: , Index: 2 Congestion-notification: Disabled
Logical interface: ge-0/0/0.0, Index: 69 Object Name Type Index Classifier ipprec-compatibility ip 13 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
You are sending traffic to the ge-0/0/0 interface on R1 with the expedited forwarding (101) IP precedence bits. However, the counters on the router show that it is not processing any traffic in the expedited forwarding queue.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the problem?

• A.The classifier is dropping the traffic.
• B.The classifier is assigning the traffic to the best-effort forwarding class.
• C.The classifier does not contain a mapping for this precedence value.
• D.The classifier is assigning the traffic a high loss priority.

-- Exhibit -user@switch>show dot1x interface ge-0/0/1 detail ge-0/0/1.0 Role: Authenticator Administrative state: Auto Supplicant mode: Multiple Number of retries: 3 Quiet perioD. 60 seconds Transmit perioD. 30 seconds Mac Radius: Enabled Mac Radius Restrict: Enabled Reauthentication: Disabled Configured Reauthentication interval: 3600 seconds Supplicant timeout: 30 seconds Server timeout: 30 seconds Maximum EAPOL requests: 2 Guest VLAN member: Number of connected supplicants: 0 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
You are asked to troubleshoot an access control issue on your EX Series switch. The user connecting through port ge-0/0/1 indicates that their 802.1X supplicant is failing authentication and they are not able to connect to the network.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the 802.1X supplicant to fail?

• A.The reauthentication interval is set too high.
• B.The supplicant mode is defined as multiple.
• C.The MAC restrict option is configured.
• D.The supplicant timeout value is set too low.

-- Exhibit -user@router> show route protocol bgp detail
inet.0: 20 destinations, 20 routes (19 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden) 10.222.1.3/32 (1 entry, 1 announced) *BGP Preference: 170/-101 Next hop type: Indirect Address: 0x15ec944 Next-hop reference count: 3 Source: 1.1.1.1 Next hop type: Router, Next hop index: 536 Next hop: 1.1.1.1 via ge-0/0/1.0, selected Protocol next hop: 1.1.1.1 Indirect next hop: 14081d0 262142 State: Local AS: 65222 Peer AS: 65221 Age: 2:12 MetriC. 1 Metric2: 0 Task: BGP_65221.1.1.1.1+56417 Announcement bits (2): 0-KRT 4-Resolve tree 1 AS path: 65221 I Communities: no-advertise Accepted Localpref: 100 Router ID. 10.222.1.1 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
You are troubleshooting a problem where an EBGP route is not being advertised to your local IBGP peers. You have received a 10.222.1.3/32 route from an EBGP peer as shown in the exhibit, but the route is not being advertised.
What is causing the problem?

• A.The route shows as a hidden route and cannot be advertised.
• B.The community prevents the route from being advertised.
• C.The local preference value is too high for the route to be advertised.
• D.The next hop for the route is indirect and prevents the route from being advertised.

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

-- Exhibit --
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# show vr1 routing-options
instance-import [ vr1 vr2 ];
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# show vr2 routing-options
instance-import [ vr1 vr2 ];
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# top show policy-options policy-statement vr1
term 1 {
from instance vr1;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# top show policy-options policy-statement vr2
term 1 {
from instance vr2;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
A network engineer wants to leak routes between routing instances vr1 and vr2. No routes from vr2 are showing up in vr1.
Which change should the engineer make to accomplish this task?

• A.[edit routing-instances]
  user@router# set vr1 routing-options interface-routes rib-group vr2
• B.[edit routing-instances]
  user@router# set vr1 routing-options auto-export
• C.[edit routing-instances]
  user@router# delete vr1 routing-options instance-import
  [edit routing-instances]
  user@router# set vr1 routing-options instance-import (vr1 || vr2)
• D.[edit routing-instances]
  user@router# delete vr1 routing-options instance-import
  [edit routing-instances]
  user@router# set vr1 routing-options instance-import (vr1 && vr2)