Free JN0-664 Juniper Updates

IS-IS is an interior gateway protocol that uses link-state routing to exchange routing information among routers within a single autonomous system. IS-IS uses two types of addresses to identify routers and areas: system ID and area address. The system ID is a unique identifier for each router in an IS-IS domain. The system ID is 6 octets long and can be derived from the MAC address or manually configured. The area address is a variable-length identifier for each area in an IS-IS domain. The area address can be 1 to 13 octets long and is composed of high-order octets of the address. An IS-IS instance may be assigned multiple area addresses, which are considered synonymous. Multiple synonymous area addresses are useful when merging or splitting areas in the domain1. In this question, we have a network based on IS-IS with four routers (R1_1, R1_2, R2_1, and R2_2) belonging to area 0001. The area address for area 0001 is 49.0001. The NSEL byte for area 0001 is the last octet of the address, which is 01. The NSEL byte stands for Network Service Access Point Selector (NSAP Selector) and indicates the type of service requested from the network layer2. Therefore, the correct statement in this scenario is that the NSEL byte for area 0001 is 01.

References: 1: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_isis/configuration/xe-16/irs-xe-16-book/irs-ovrvw-cf.html  2: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html

BGP is an exterior gateway protocol that uses path vector routing to exchange routing information among autonomous systems. BGP uses various attributes to select the best path to each destination and to propagate routing policies. Some of the common BGP attributes are AS path, next hop, local preference, MED, origin, weight, and community. BGP attributes can be classified into four categories: well-known mandatory, well-known discretionary, optional transitive, and optional nontransitive. Well-known mandatory attributes are attributes that must be present in every BGP update message and must be recognized by every BGP speaker. Well-known discretionary attributes are attributes that may or may not be present in a BGP update message but must be recognized by every BGP speaker. Optional transitive attributes are attributes that may or may not be present in a BGP update message and may or may not be recognized by a BGP speaker. If an optional transitive attribute is not recognized by a BGP speaker, it is passed along to the next BGP speaker. Optional nontransitive attributes are attributes that may or may not be present in a BGP update message and may or may not be recognized by a BGP speaker. If an optional nontransitive attribute is not recognized by a BGP speaker, it is not passed along to the next BGP speaker. In this question, we have four routers (R1, R2, R3, and R4) that are connected in a full mesh topology and running IBGP. R3 receives the 192.168.0.0/16 route from its EBGP neighbor and advertises it to R1 and R4 with different BGP attribute values. We are asked which statements are correct about the BGP routes on R3 that are learned from the ISP-A neighbor. Based on the information given, we can infer that the correct statements are:

• By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3. This is because the default behavior of EBGP is to preserve the next-hop attribute of the routes received from another EBGP neighbor. The next-hop attribute indicates the IP address of the router that should be used as the next hop to reach the destination network.
• The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3. This is because the local-preference attribute is a well-known discretionary attribute that is used to influence the outbound traffic from an autonomous system. The local-preference attribute is only propagated within an autonomous system and is not advertised to external neighbors.

References: : https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13753-25.html : https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13762-40.html : https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/ip/border-gateway-protocol-bgp/13759-37.html

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.