Discuss Juniper JN0-664 Exam Topic 2 Question 30

Exhibit

CE-1 and CE-2 are part of a VPLS called Customer1 No connectivity exists between CE-1 and CE-2. In the process of troubleshooting, you notice PE-1 is not learning any routes for this VPLS from PE-2, and PE-2 is not learning any routes for this VPLS from PE-1.

AThe route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

BThe route distinguisher must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

CThe instance type should be changed to I2vpn.

DThe no-tunnel-services statement should be deleted on both PEs.

Suggested Answer: A

VPLS is a technology that provides Layer 2 VPN services over an MPLS network. VPLS uses BGP as its control protocol to exchange VPN membership information between PE routers. The route target is a BGP extended community attribute that identifies which VPN a route belongs to. The route target must match on PE routers that participate in the same VPLS instance, otherwise they will not accept or advertise routes for that VPLS.

Get Premium JN0-664 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test

36 comments · newest first

Ming 11 months ago

Surprised there's no connectivity at all!

Melissa 11 months ago

I’m not sure about C, that seems off.

Casie 11 months ago

Wait, could it be B instead?

Luisa 11 months ago

I think it's definitely A.

Edgar 12 months ago

Route target matching is crucial for VPLS.

Fannie 12 months ago

I feel like the instance type being set to I2vpn might be relevant, but I don't have a clear example from my studies to back that up.

Tawanna 1 year ago

The no-tunnel-services statement sounds familiar, but I can't remember if it applies to this scenario or not.

Nieves 1 year ago

I think I practiced a question where the route distinguisher was the problem, but I can't recall the specifics.

Isidra 1 year ago

I remember something about route targets needing to match for VPLS to work correctly, but I'm not entirely sure if that's the main issue here.

Shawn 1 year ago

I'm a bit confused on this one. Is it possible the instance type needs to be changed to I2vpn? Or could the no-tunnel-services statement be causing the problem?

Arlie 1 year ago

Ah, I got this. The route target must be the issue here. That's the first thing I'd check to make sure it's configured correctly and matching on both PE-1 and PE-2.

Larae 1 year ago

Okay, let's see. The key seems to be that PE-1 and PE-2 are not learning any routes for this VPLS from each other. I'm thinking the route target or route distinguisher configuration could be the problem.

Chauncey 1 year ago

Hmm, this seems like a tricky VPLS issue. I'll need to carefully review the information provided and think through the possible causes.

Pamella 1 year ago

Alright, time to put on my troubleshooting hat. I'll start by verifying the route target and route distinguisher configurations on both PE routers. That seems like the most likely culprit based on the information provided.

Hester 1 year ago

I think the answer is material properties. The vibration characteristics and the inherent properties of the components both play a crucial role in vibration-induced fatigue. I'm feeling confident about this one.

Renea 1 year ago

I remember a practice question similar to this! I think "all of the above" could be a strong answer since they all seem relevant to protecting from liability.

Rosenda 1 year ago

Hmm, this looks like it's asking about code quality tools for Java. I think I remember learning about PMD, which can detect issues like unused variables and empty catch blocks. I'll go with option B.

Alease 2 years ago

Haha, changing the instance type to I2vpn? Really? That's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Not gonna work, buddy!

Devorah 2 years ago

Hmm, I'm not sure about that. What if the route distinguisher is the problem? That could be causing the connectivity issues between PE-1 and PE-2.

Bong 2 years ago

I agree with Carin. The route target is the key to VPLS connectivity, so that's the first thing I'd check.

Remedios 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

D) The no-tunnel-services statement should be deleted on both PEs.

Carlene 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

C) The instance type should be changed to l2vpn.

Carissa 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

B) The route distinguisher must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Eveline 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

A) The route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Roxanne 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

B) I think the route distinguisher must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Lakeesha 2 years ago

↳ replying to Bong

A) The route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Annamae 2 years ago

I think we should check both the route target and route distinguisher to be sure.

Tasia 2 years ago

It's possible, but I think the route target is more likely the culprit.

Mona 2 years ago

But what about the route distinguisher? Could that also be causing the problem?

Carin 2 years ago

The route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2. That's the obvious issue here.

German 2 years ago

↳ replying to Carin

D) The no-tunnel-services statement should be deleted on both PEs.

Trinidad 2 years ago

↳ replying to Carin

C) The instance type should be changed to I2vpn.

Myra 2 years ago

↳ replying to Carin

B) The route distinguisher must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Matt 2 years ago

↳ replying to Carin

A) The route target must match on PE-1 and PE-2.

Annamae 2 years ago

I agree, if the route target doesn't match, the PEs won't learn the routes.

Tasia 2 years ago

I think the issue might be with the route target.

Juniper JN0-664 Exam - Topic 2 Question 30 Discussion