Free Juniper JN0-281 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

On broadcast network types in OSPF, such as Ethernet segments, forming a full mesh of adjacencies between every pair of routers would create significant control-plane overhead. Every router would need to maintain neighbor state with every other router, exchange database information redundantly, and flood link-state updates across many parallel adjacencies. This becomes inefficient as the number of routers on the segment grows.

To address this, OSPF elects a Designated Router and a Backup Designated Router. The DR acts as the central point for adjacency formation on that broadcast segment. Instead of each router forming full adjacencies with all others, routers form full adjacencies primarily with the DR and BDR. The DR is responsible for generating and flooding network LSAs that represent the broadcast segment and for coordinating reliable LSA flooding on that segment. This significantly reduces the number of adjacencies and the volume of duplicated database exchange and LSA flooding, which is why option A is correct.

The BDR is a standby control-plane role. It monitors the segment and is prepared to take over the DR function if the DR fails, improving stability and convergence. However, the primary purpose of having DR and BDR is the scaling benefit of reduced adjacency and flooding overhead on broadcast networks.

A five-stage IP fabric is typically used when a single pod, even with a three-stage design, cannot meet overall scale requirements for port count, bandwidth, or modular growth. In this model, the data center is built from multiple fabric pods, where each pod is commonly a three-stage topology that includes leaf switches and one or more spine layers. The superspine layer provides the interconnect that ties these pods together into a larger fabric. Functionally, superspines create high-capacity, routed connectivity between the spine layers of different pods so that endpoints in any pod can reach endpoints in any other pod using consistent Layer 3 forwarding principles and equal-cost multipath behavior where applicable.

Option D is correct because the superspine layer is the aggregation and inter-pod transit layer. It does not exist to force every leaf to connect to every spine across the entire multi-pod deployment. That full mesh property is preserved within a pod, not across the entire site at extreme scale. The superspine layer also does not create a Layer 2 underlay; modern fabrics use a routed underlay to avoid spanning tree limitations and to enable deterministic multipathing. Finally, the superspine layer is not defined by creating a single common BGP autonomous system; autonomous system design is a policy choice, while the superspine role is a physical and logical interconnection function between pods.

The exhibit shows the physical member interfaces xe-4/0/0 and xe-4/0/1 are up, but the aggregated Ethernet interface ae0 is down. This commonly indicates that the bundle is not successfully forming at the link aggregation control plane level, even though the physical links are operational. The key evidence is in the LACP statistics. The local device is transmitting LACP packets at a very high count on both member links, but the LACP receive counters remain at zero. That means the local system is actively sending LACP Data Units but is not receiving any LACP Data Units back from the far end.

When an LACP-based bundle is configured, the two sides must exchange LACP control packets to negotiate membership and move the links into collecting and distributing state. If the remote side is not configured for LACP, or is configured for a static aggregate without LACP, it will not send LACP packets. In that situation, the Junos device continues transmitting LACP but never receives a response, and the aggregate does not come up, leaving the logical ae interface down even though the member links are physically up.

Therefore, the cause is that the remote device does not have LACP configured. The routing protocol choices on either side are irrelevant to LACP negotiation, and the local device clearly has LACP enabled because it is transmitting LACP packets.

Nonstop active routing is the Junos high availability feature designed to keep routing protocol operation and routing information continuous across a Routing Engine switchover on platforms with redundant Routing Engines. With NSR enabled, the control-plane routing state is replicated so that protocol sessions and routing information can remain stable when the device transitions from the primary to the backup Routing Engine. The goal is a transparent switchover that minimizes or eliminates routing reconvergence caused by a Routing Engine failure.

This is especially important in data center environments where routing stability underpins EVPN VXLAN control-plane operation, underlay BGP or OSPF adjacencies, and service reachability. By maintaining the routing protocol process state across the switchover, NSR helps prevent neighbor resets and reduces churn in the routing table, which directly protects application traffic paths from disruption that would otherwise occur during a control-plane restart.

GRES is closely related but has a different focus: it preserves forwarding and certain kernel and interface states so that packet forwarding can continue, but by itself it does not preserve the full routing protocol control plane. That is why NSR is the best match when the requirement explicitly includes routing information continuity in addition to traffic continuity. LACP and BFD are valuable availability tools, but they address link bundling and fast failure detection, not Routing Engine stateful failover.

An access port is a Layer 2 switch interface mode intended for an endpoint that belongs to a single VLAN. Traffic on an access port is associated with exactly one VLAN, and frames are typically transmitted and received untagged on the wire. The switch internally maps that untagged traffic into the configured access VLAN, placing the endpoint into the correct broadcast domain. This behavior is widely used for server access, management ports, out of band devices, and any endpoint that does not tag VLANs.

By contrast, trunk ports are designed to carry multiple VLANs simultaneously, usually with 802.1Q tagging, and are typically used between switches, to routers, to virtualization hosts, or to appliances that handle multiple VLANs. That is why assigning multiple VLANs to an access port is not the standard access mode behavior.

An access port does not have to connect to a router or a firewall. It can connect directly to any Ethernet endpoint. Routing between VLANs is provided by a Layer 3 interface such as an IRB interface on the switch or an external routed device, but that is independent of whether the endpoint connects on an access port.

Verification sources from Juniper documentation

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/multicast-l2/topics/topic-map/bridging-and-vlans.html

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/multicast-l2/topics/task/interfaces-configuring-ethernet-switching-access.html

To intentionally drop traffic to a specific destination while also informing the sender that the destination is unreachable, Junos provides a routing action specifically meant for this behavior: a static route with a next hop of reject. A reject route installs a forwarding entry that causes matching packets to be dropped, and it also triggers generation of an ICMP unreachable message back to the traffic source. This is useful in data center routing for controlled blackholing with feedback, for example when you want to signal misrouted traffic, invalid destinations, or to enforce policy with explicit notification.

A discard route also drops packets, but it does so silently without sending ICMP unreachable messages. That makes discard appropriate for traffic-sink use cases such as safe summarization or DDoS mitigation where you do not want to generate return traffic. Adding addresses to martians is intended to block invalid special-use prefixes from being treated as routable, not to create a targeted unreachable response for an arbitrary destination. Using inet.3 is related to MPLS label-switched forwarding and does not address the requirement. A firewall filter that discards traffic will typically drop silently unless explicitly configured to send rejects in a security context, and it is not the standard routing-table-based method when the requirement is an ICMP unreachable response for a destination prefix.

Therefore, a reject static route is the correct solution.

EBGP is defined as BGP peering between different autonomous systems, which makes statement A correct. In data center IP fabrics, it is common to assign different private AS numbers to leaves and spines or to use a structured AS design so that every leaf forms EBGP sessions to each spine. This provides clear policy boundaries, straightforward troubleshooting, and predictable route propagation without needing an additional interior gateway protocol to carry underlay reachability.

Statement C is also correct because EBGP can be deployed without a supporting IGP. BGP itself can distribute the underlay routes needed for fabric reachability, such as loopback addresses and point to point link prefixes. This is a widely used approach for leaf spine fabrics because it reduces protocol complexity and avoids running multiple control planes for the underlay. Convergence can be improved using multipath, rapid failure detection mechanisms, and consistent routing policy.

Statement B is incorrect because BGP within a single AS is IBGP, not EBGP. Statement D is incorrect because while some designs may choose to run an IGP and use BGP only for certain functions, EBGP does not inherently require an IGP to operate or to provide underlay connectivity in a fabric design.

Qualified next hop is the Junos mechanism that lets you configure more than one next hop for the same static route and control which one is preferred. This is most commonly used to build primary and backup forwarding behavior with deterministic selection. You configure a primary next hop and then add one or more qualified next hops with a different preference value. The route installs the best, lowest preference next hop as active, while keeping the alternate next hop available as standby. If the primary next hop becomes unusable, Junos can switch to the qualified next hop so traffic continues to flow.

This approach is widely used in data center edge and services routing, for example toward management networks, service appliances, or external gateways where you want a static default or summary route with predictable failover. It is not the same as resolving a non-directly-connected next hop. That scenario is handled by recursive resolution behavior, not by qualification. Qualified next hop also does not depend on any specific routing protocol, and it is not limited to link-state environments.

Finally, qualified next hop does not rely on sending pings to test reachability. Health tracking can be achieved through other mechanisms such as interface state, next hop resolution changes, or integration with failure detection features, but the qualified next hop feature itself is about preference-ranked redundancy for static routes.

On Junos Ethernet switching platforms, the Layer 2 forwarding decision is based on a MAC address lookup table. Juniper commonly refers to this as the Ethernet switching table, which contains learned source MAC addresses mapped to an ingress interface and a VLAN or bridge domain context. This table is built dynamically through normal Layer 2 learning, and it is what allows the switch to forward known unicast frames to the correct egress interface instead of flooding within the broadcast domain.

In Juniper terminology, the forwarding plane also maintains a forwarding database used to program hardware forwarding entries. While the term forwarding information base is most often associated with Layer 3 forwarding for IP prefixes, many training and operational contexts use FIB language when describing the programmed forwarding state in the data plane, including the entries that result from Ethernet switching learning. The key idea is that the control plane and switching processes populate forwarding state, and the forwarding plane uses that state to make fast, deterministic forwarding decisions at line rate.

Options inet.0 and RIB are Layer 3 constructs. inet.0 is the main IPv4 routing table, and the RIB is the routing information base that stores routes before they are programmed into forwarding. Neither represents the Layer 2 MAC learning table.

Spine and leaf architectures improve data center scalability by using a consistent, modular building block. When you need more server ports, you add leaf switches. When you need more fabric capacity, you add spine switches. This horizontal growth model avoids the limitations of traditional three-tier designs that often require larger aggregation devices or complex expansion. Because each leaf connects to every spine, the fabric naturally provides many parallel paths and can use equal-cost multipath forwarding across all uplinks. These properties deliver better scaling characteristics in both bandwidth and port count, which is why option B is correct.

Option C is also correct because spine and leaf fabrics provide low and predictable hop counts. Traffic between endpoints on different leaves typically crosses the fabric with a consistent number of hops, usually one spine hop in a two-tier fabric. This predictability reduces latency variance and improves application performance, especially for east-west traffic patterns common to distributed systems, storage, and microservices. Predictable paths also simplify troubleshooting and capacity planning.

Container and hypervisor management is primarily an orchestration and operations topic rather than a direct network architecture advantage. Finally, making all broadcast domains reachable is not an inherent benefit; modern data centers usually limit Layer 2 flooding domains and prefer routed underlays with overlays for segmentation, rather than expanding broadcast reachability everywhere.