Free Juniper JN0-664 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 3

The `vrf-target` statement in a Layer 3 VPN configuration is used to control the import and export of VPN routes by attaching a target community to the routes. This helps in defining which VPN routes should be imported into or exported from a particular VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instance.

1. **Understanding VRF Target**:

- The `vrf-target` statement specifies the extended community attributes (route targets) that are used to control the import and export of routes in a VRF.

- These attributes help in identifying which routes should be shared between different VRFs, particularly across different PE (Provider Edge) devices.

2. **Statements Analysis**:

- **A. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the local CE device.**

- Incorrect. The `vrf-target` attribute is not used to identify routes learned from the local CE device. It is used to manage routes between PE devices and within the provider's MPLS network.

- **B. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the remote PE device.**

- Correct. The `vrf-target` value helps in identifying which routes from remote PE devices should be imported into the local VRF. It essentially acts as a filter for importing BGP routes with matching target communities.

- **C. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the local CE device.**

- Incorrect. Routes advertised to the local CE device do not use the `vrf-target` attribute. Instead, these routes are typically managed within the local VRF routing table.

- **D. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the remote PE device.**

- Correct. When advertising routes from the local PE to remote PE devices, the `vrf-target` value is added to these routes. This target community ensures that the correct routes are shared across the VPN.

**Conclusion**:

The correct statements about the `vrf-target` configuration in a Layer 3 VPN scenario are:

**B. This value is used to identify BGP routes learned from the remote PE device.**

**D. This value is used to add a target community to BGP routes advertised to the remote PE device.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on VRF Target: [VRF Target Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/layer-3-vpns.html)

- MPLS and VPN Architectures by Ivan Pepelnjak and Jim Guichard

Layer 2 VPNs don’t support fragmentation in the provider network. It is critical that the provider network supports the largest frame that the CE devices can generate after the MPLS and virtual routing and forwarding (VRF) labels are added by the PE devices. This example leaves the CE devices at the default 1500-byte maximum transmission unit (MTU) while configuring the provider core to support a 4000 byte MTU. This configuration avoids discards by ensuring the CE devices cannot exceed the MTU in the provider’s network.

Analyzing the Exhibit

The diagram represents BGP peering between:

AS 65512 (Enterprise Network)

AS 65511 (ISP-A)

R3 and R4 are peering with ISP-A using EBGP.

R1, R2, R3, and R4 are peering within AS 65512 using IBGP.

Understanding BGP Route Behavior

Option A: "By default, the next-hop value for these routes is not changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3." ❌

Incorrect!

EBGP behavior: When a BGP route is advertised via EBGP, the next-hop IP is changed to the router's own IP by default.

Since ISP-A is advertising routes via EBGP to R3, the next-hop is changed to ISP-A’s IP.

Thus, this statement is incorrect.

Option B: "The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3." ✅

Correct!

BGP Local Preference (LOCAL_PREF) is an IBGP-only attribute.

Local Preference is NOT shared over EBGP because it is used within an AS to influence route selection.

ISP-A will not send LOCAL_PREF to R3, as R3 is in a different AS.

Thus, this statement is correct.

Option C: "All BGP attribute values must be removed before receiving the routes." ❌

Incorrect!

BGP does not remove all attributes when advertising routes. Some attributes are modified (e.g., next-hop, AS-PATH), but others (like MED, community) may be preserved.

Thus, this statement is incorrect.

Option D: "The next-hop value for these routes is changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3." ✅

Correct!

As per default EBGP behavior, the next-hop is changed when a route is advertised to an EBGP peer.

This means ISP-A changes the next-hop to its own IP before sending it to R3.

Thus, this statement is correct.

Final Answer:

✅ B. The BGP local-preference value that is used by ISP-A is not advertised to R3.

✅ D. The next-hop value for these routes is changed by ISP-A before being sent to R3.

Verification from Juniper Documentation:

Juniper BGP Configuration Guide confirms that LOCAL_PREF is not advertised over EBGP.

RFC 4271 (BGP-4) specifies that next-hop is changed by default when advertising routes via EBGP.

AToM (Any Transport over MPLS) is a framework that supports various Layer 2 transport types over an MPLS network core. One of the transport types supported by AToM is LDP Layer 2 circuit, which is a point-to-point Layer 2 connection that uses LDP for signaling and MPLS for forwarding. LDP Layer 2 circuit can support Layer 2 connectivity without using BGP and can be scalable and efficient by using a single MPLS LSP for multiple VPN connections. The customer can maintain all routing for their private network by using their own CE switches.

The hello interval is the time interval between two consecutive hello packets sent by an OSPF router on an interface. The dead interval is the time interval after which a neighbor is declared down if no hello packets are received from it. These parameters must match between two OSPF routers for them to form an adjacency. In the exhibit, router R1 has a hello interval of 10 seconds and a dead interval of 40 seconds, while router R2 has a hello interval of 30 seconds and a dead interval of 120 seconds. This causes a mismatch and prevents them from becoming neighbors23.

To create a summary route for IS-IS, you need to configure a policy statement that matches the prefixes to be summarized and sets the next-hop to discard. You also need to configure a summary-address statement under the IS-IS protocol hierarchy that references the policy statement. In this case, the policy statement leak-v6 is trying to match the prefix 2001:db9:a:fa00::/61 exactly, but this prefix is not advertised by any router in the network. Therefore, no summary route is created. To fix this, you need to delete the longer keyword from the route-filter term and change the prefix length to /61 exact. This will match any prefix that falls within the /61 range. You also need to delete the export statement under protocols isis, because this will export all routes that match the policy statement to other IS-IS routers, which is not desired for a summary route.

The issue arises because R3’s group-range (224.1.1.0/28) is more specific than R2’s group-range (224.1.1.0/24). In PIM bootstrap (BSR), the RP with the longest prefix (most specific group-range) is preferred, regardless of priority. Even though R3 has a higher bootstrap priority (210 vs. R2’s 200), its more specific /28 group-range takes precedence for groups within 224.1.1.0/28.

Why Option D is Correct:

To force R4 to use R2 for all joins, R2’s group-range must be more specific than R3’s. For example:

If R2’s group-range is changed to 224.1.1.0/28 (same as R3) but with a higher priority, R2 would win (priority is compared only when group-ranges are equal).

If R2’s group-range is changed to 224.1.1.0/29 (more specific than /28), it will override R3’s /28 for groups in the /29 range.

The key is prefix specificity, which overrides priority in BSR elections.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Change bootstrap priority on R2 to be higher than R3:

Priority is evaluated only when group-ranges are identical. Since R3’s group-range (/28) is more specific than R2’s (/24), R3 will still win for groups in 224.1.1.0/28, even if R2’s priority is higher.

B. Change the default route in inet.2 on R4:

RPF routes (inet.2) determine how traffic reaches the RP, but they do not influence RP election logic (BSR priority/group-range).

C. Change R2’s local address to be higher than R3’s:

The RP address is a tiebreaker only if priorities and group-ranges are equal. Since R3’s group-range is more specific, this change has no impact.

Key Takeaways:

BSR RP Election Order:

Longest group prefix (most specific).

Highest priority (if prefixes are equal).

Highest RP address (if prefixes and priorities are equal).

To override R3, R2 must advertise a more specific group-range (e.g., /28 or smaller) to ensure it is selected for the desired multicast groups.

Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS) is a link-state routing protocol that supports Level 1 (L1), Level 2 (L2), or both (L1/L2) operations. The way IS-IS sends Hello (IIH) packets depends on whether the interface is point-to-point (P2P) or broadcast (LAN).

Evaluating the Answer Choices

✅ Option A: "If a point-to-point interface is in both L1 and L2, separate hello messages are sent for each level."

Incorrect!

On point-to-point (P2P) interfaces, only one combined Hello message is sent for both L1 and L2.

IS-IS P2P Hellos include both Level 1 and Level 2 TLVs in the same message.