Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Juniper JN0-351 Exam - Topic 7 Question 16 Discussion

Actual exam question for Juniper's JN0-351 exam
Question #: 16
Topic #: 7
[All JN0-351 Questions]

You deployed a new EX Series switch with DHCP snooping enabled and you do not see any entries in the snooping databases for an interface. Which two Juniper configurations for that interface caused this issue? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B, D

The two reasons for the failure to form an adjacency in a network running IS-IS could be:

B) There is no configured ISO address on any IS-IS interface.IS-IS requires each router interface to have an ISO address configured.Without this address, the routers cannot form an adjacency1.

D) The family iso configuration is missing from the adjacency interface.The 'family iso' configuration is essential for IS-IS to function correctly.If this configuration is missing from the adjacency interface, it could prevent the formation of an adjacency1.

These explanations are based on the Enterprise Routing and Switching Specialist (JNCIS-ENT) documents and learning resources available at Juniper Networks23.


by Samira at Apr 22, 2024, 09:45 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium JN0-351 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Chanel
4 months ago
Dynamic ARP inspection shouldn't affect DHCP snooping, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
5 months ago
Wait, can a trunk port really cause this issue? Sounds odd.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laurel
5 months ago
I think MAC limiting could also be a factor here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Launa
5 months ago
Totally agree, that would stop DHCP snooping from working.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sylvie
5 months ago
The interface is configured as a disabled port.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanda
6 months ago
Dynamic ARP inspection sounds like it could interfere, but I’m not positive if it directly affects DHCP snooping. I need to double-check that.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tayna
6 months ago
I feel like trunk ports might not work with DHCP snooping, but I can't recall the specifics. It’s a bit fuzzy for me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leslie
6 months ago
I’m not entirely sure, but I think MAC limiting could also prevent entries from being recorded. I’ve seen similar questions before.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
6 months ago
I remember that if the interface is disabled, it definitely won't log any DHCP snooping entries. That seems like a likely option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billi
6 months ago
I'm a little confused by this question. I understand the concept of DHCP snooping, but I'm not sure how the specific interface configurations would impact it. I'll need to think this through carefully and review my notes.
upvoted 0 times
...
Donte
6 months ago
Okay, I've got this. The key is to look for interface configurations that would prevent DHCP traffic from being seen and recorded in the snooping database. Disabled ports and trunk ports would both do that, so I'll select those.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elke
6 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know DHCP snooping is used to monitor DHCP traffic, but I'm not sure how the interface configuration could impact that. I'll need to review the Juniper documentation on DHCP snooping.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zachary
6 months ago
This question seems straightforward. I'll focus on the DHCP snooping configuration and think about what could prevent the snooping database from being populated.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elfrieda
6 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about the fiber interface type. Is it single mode or multi-mode? That could make a difference in the answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Derick
6 months ago
Ah, I've got this one! The main purpose of a workshop is to bring people together to work towards a common goal and produce tangible outputs. So option B is clearly the right answer here. Easy peasy!
upvoted 0 times
...
Deandrea
7 months ago
I think Cisco Workload Optimization Manager could be the answer since it focuses on managing and optimizing workloads effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marisha
11 months ago
Whoa, Juniper really knows how to keep us on our toes with these DHCP snooping questions. Time to brush up on my trunk port and ARP inspection knowledge!
upvoted 0 times
...
Denae
11 months ago
I'm confident it's C and D. Trunk ports and dynamic ARP inspection seem like the most likely culprits here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dona
11 months ago
Ha, I bet it's B and D. MAC limiting and dynamic ARP inspection - Juniper just loves to throw in those curveballs!
upvoted 0 times
Aleta
10 months ago
User 3: I'll make sure to double check those configurations next time I deploy a new switch.
upvoted 0 times
...
Xuan
10 months ago
User 2: Yeah, Juniper switches can be tricky sometimes with all these different settings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tonja
10 months ago
User 1: I think it's B and D too. Those configurations can definitely cause issues.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Domingo
12 months ago
I'm going with A and C. A disabled port and a trunk port would both prevent DHCP snooping from working properly.
upvoted 0 times
Katy
10 months ago
We should double check those configurations to make sure they are causing the problem.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cyndy
10 months ago
Yeah, having a disabled port and a trunk port would definitely impact the DHCP snooping.
upvoted 0 times
...
Daren
11 months ago
I think it's A and C too. Those configurations would definitely cause the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Margurite
12 months ago
Hmm, I'm thinking it's B and C. MAC limiting and trunk ports can definitely cause issues with DHCP snooping.
upvoted 0 times
Trina
11 months ago
Yeah, MAC limiting and trunk ports can definitely cause issues with DHCP snooping. Good call.
upvoted 0 times
...
Leonor
11 months ago
I think it's B and C too. Those configurations can definitely impact the snooping databases.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Walker
1 year ago
I don't think it's because of MAC limiting. I believe the interface being configured as a trunk port could also be causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Selma
1 year ago
I agree with Antonio, that could be one of the reasons. Maybe MAC limiting is also enabled on the interface.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
1 year ago
I think the issue might be because the interface is configured as a disabled port.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel