Safari Books Online is a digital library providing on-demand subscription access to thousands of learning resources.
After defining an aggregate route for 0/0, you note that the M7i's system board CPU utilization increases. What might account for this?
The default route is attracting traffic that is not specifically matched, leading to a reject action and corresponding ICMP error packet generation
The default route is attracting traffic that is not specifically matched, leading to discard and ICMP error packet generation
The default route is attracting traffic that matches more specific prefixes and is being forwarded, hence the increased CPU usage
The default route is attracting traffic that matches more specific prefixes and is being dropped, hence the increased CPU usage
Which of the following defines a floating static route that backs up an OSPF externally learned route?
Set static route 1.1.10/24, next hop t1-0/0/2
Set static route 1.1.10/24, next hop t1-0/0/2, preference 11
Set static route 1.1.10/24, next hop t1-0/0/2, preference 151
Set static route 1.1.10/24, next hop t1-0/0/2, qualified next hop
None of the above
You issue the command set routing-options autonomous-system loops 3. What does it do?
Tolerates as many as three instances of the local AS number in transmitted route updates
Tolerates as many as three instances of the local AS number in received route updates
Tolerates as many as two instances of the local AS number in transmitted route updates
Tolerates as many as two instances of the local AS number in received route updates
After defining a generated route for 10/8, you find that the route is inactive, despite having interfaces that are locally numbered from the 10.x. x.0/24 space. What could account for this?
Your interfaces are all multipoint, and you have not learned any routes over any of them, so there is no forwarding next hop for the generated route
Your interfaces are all point-to-point, and you have not learned any routes over any of them, so there is no forwarding next hop for the generated route
You must define an explicit policy to list which routes are allowed to contribute
Your interfaces are all multipoint, and you have learned routes over them, which makes the generated route unneeded
What command displays the route table for a Layer 3 VPN routing instance named l3_vpn?
show route
show route table l3_vpn
show route table l3_vpn.inet.0
All of the above
You have configured RIP between three routers connected in a serial chain, but no RIP routes are being learned. Which policy results in full RIP connectivity for all direct routes?
A RIP import policy of the form:
term 1 {
from protocol [ rip direct ];
then accept;
}A RIP export policy of the form:
term 1 {
from protocol [ rip direct ];
then accept;
}A RIP import policy of the form:
term 1 {
from protocol direct;
then accept;
}A RIP export policy of the form:
term 1 {
from protocol direct;
then accept;
}What happens when the static route 192.168.10/24 is evaluated by this policy?
[edit policy-options policy-statement test]
lab@PBR# show
term 1 {
from {
protocol bgp;
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 orlonger reject;
route-filter 192.168.10.0/24 exact {
metric 10;
accept;
}
}
}Nothing, because no match occurs
The route is longest-matched against the first route filter and rejected
The route is longest-matched against the second route filter and has its metric set to 10
Both b and c
What happens if the not policy matches a route with a reject action in the following policy expression?
[edit protocols ospf] lab@PBR# show export (( ! not ) && and );
The result is inverted to an accept, and the second policy is evaluated
The reject action in the not policy ensures that the AND condition cannot be met, so the second policy is never evaluated
Both policies are evaluated, and the logical result, which is false because of the reject in the not policy, is inverted, so the route is accepted
None of the above
What type of import policy can you apply to OSPF?
None; LS protocols do not support the notion of import policies because it breaks database consistency
You can apply policy to filter certain LSA types, such as AS externals to create a stub area
Import policy for OSPF can only be used to filter AS external LSAs from being flooded
Import policy for OSPF can be used to prevent installation of AS external routes into the route table, but has no effect on flooding
In the following configuration, which export policy is peer 1.1.1.1 subjected to?
[edit protocols bgp]
lab@PBR#show
import ( ! community_regex_test );
export globalize;
group internal {
export keep_it_on_down_low;
neighbor 1.1.1.1;
neighbor 1.1.1.2 {
export bad_peer_filter;
}
}The globalize policy
The keep_it_on_down_low policy
The bad_peer_filter policy
The globalize and keep_it_on_down_low policies
First the keep_it_on_down_low, and then the globalize policy
From where does a Juniper router obtain its RID?
From explicit configuration at the [edit routing-options] hierarchy
From the first nonmartian address found on the first interface that is found
Both a and b
Either a or b
You were provided a network diagram that told you to number your network from the 191.255.0.0/16 space. OSPF is enabled and adjacencies are up, but no routers are learning any routes. What can explain this?
The default OSPF export policies advertise nothing, so you need to apply export policy
The default OSPF import policy rejects all OSPF routes, so you need to apply import policy
You need to modify the martian table with a 191.255.0.0/16 accept statement
You need to enable OSPF on the lo0 interface to provide a route to the RID of each router in the network