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

Juniper JN0-664 Exam - Topic 2 Question 47 Discussion

Posted by Eleonore on Apr 09, 2025 at 07:27 PM

Exhibit

Referring to the exhibit, you are receiving the 192.168 0 0/16 route on both R3 and R4 from your EBGP neighbor You must ensure that R1 and R2 receive both BGP routes from the route reflector

In this scenario, which BGP feature should you configure to accomplish this behavior?

Get Premium JN0-664 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF Real Exam Format Detailed Explanations Instant Access Get Your Practice Test
34 comments · newest first
DE
Devon 10 months ago
Route-target seems irrelevant here, right?
SH
Sharee 10 months ago
Totally agree, add-path is the way to go!
AD
Adolph 11 months ago
Surprised that add-path is the answer, I didn't see that coming!
TH
Theola 11 months ago
I thought multipath would work too, but I guess not.
RH
Rhea 11 months ago
You need to configure add-path for that.
DO
Dominga 11 months ago
I feel like multihop is more about establishing connections rather than handling route distribution, so I’m leaning towards add-path.
LA
Lawrence 11 months ago
Route-target seems like it could be related, but I don't recall it being used for this specific purpose.
LI
Linwood 12 months ago
I remember practicing a similar question about BGP features, and I think multipath could be relevant here, but it might not be the best fit for this scenario.
YO
Yolande 12 months ago
I think we might need to use add-path to allow R1 and R2 to receive both routes, but I'm not entirely sure.
JA
Jani 1 year ago
Based on the scenario, I believe the add-path feature is the correct solution. This allows the route reflector to advertise multiple paths to the same destination, which would ensure that R1 and R2 receive both routes.
CO
Cordelia 1 year ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. The options include add-path, multihop, multipath, and route-target. I'll need to review the details of each feature to determine the best approach.
VI
Vi 1 year ago
Okay, let me see... The question is asking about how to ensure that R1 and R2 receive both BGP routes from the route reflector. I'm thinking the add-path feature might be the way to go here.
LA
Launa 1 year ago
Hmm, this looks like a tricky BGP question. I'll need to think carefully about the different BGP features and how they could be used to accomplish the desired behavior.
BR
Brice 1 year ago
You know, this question reminds me of that time I accidentally configured a BGP neighbor on the wrong interface and ended up routing all my traffic through the company cafeteria. Ah, good times.
RI
Rima 1 year ago
Wait, hold up, I think you're both wrong. It's gotta be B) multihop. You need that to establish EBGP sessions between non-directly connected routers, don't you?
PA
Pa 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
B) multihop is used to establish EBGP sessions between non-directly connected routers.
JE
Jennifer 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
C) multipath allows for load balancing across multiple paths for the same prefix.
GE
German 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
A) add-path allows for multiple paths to be advertised for a single prefix.
GE
Georgiann 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
I agree with you, it has to be B) multihop. That's necessary for establishing EBGP sessions between routers that are not directly connected.
JA
Jaleesa 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
No, I'm pretty sure it's D) route-target. That's used for controlling the distribution of routes within a BGP network.
BE
Bette 1 year ago
↳ replying to Rima
I think it's actually C) multipath. That allows for load balancing between multiple paths.
MA
Margarita 1 year ago
That makes sense too. Both options could work in this scenario depending on the specific requirements.
SA
Salena 1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the answer is A) add-path as it allows for multiple paths to be advertised to the same neighbor.
MA
Margarita 2 years ago
I think the answer is C) multipath because it allows for multiple paths to be installed in the routing table.
MO
Mona 2 years ago
Nah, I'm pretty sure it's C) multipath. That's the one that lets you load-balance traffic across multiple paths, isn't it?
KA
Karan 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User1: Definitely, let's go with that option.
AD
Adelaide 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User3: So, we all agree on C) multipath then?
FA
Fanny 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User2: Yeah, that makes sense. It would ensure that R1 and R2 receive both BGP routes.
LI
Lili 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User1: I think it's C) multipath too. It allows for load-balancing across multiple paths.
JO
Joesph 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User1: Definitely, let's go with that option.
AS
Ashton 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User3: So, we all agree on C) multipath then?
VA
Vallie 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User2: Yeah, that makes sense. It would ensure that R1 and R2 receive both BGP routes.
NI
Nicholle 1 year ago
↳ replying to Mona
User1: I think it's C) multipath too. It allows for load-balancing across multiple paths.
DE
Detra 2 years ago
Hmm, I think the answer is A) add-path. That's the BGP feature that allows multiple paths to the same destination to be advertised, right?
0/2000 characters

Save Cancel