Juniper JN0-664 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The exhibit shows the configuration of a VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instance on a Juniper PE router. Let's break down the key components:

VRF Configuration (VPN-A)

The instance type is VRF, meaning this is an L3VPN (Layer 3 VPN).

The routing instance contains a static route (10.1.0.0/16 next-hop 10.1.0.1).

The interface ge-0/0/2.0 is assigned to the VRF.

Route Distinguisher (RD): 172.17.20.1:1

VRF-Export Policy: vpn-a-export

VRF-Target: target:65512:1 (This defines which routes will be imported into the VRF).

VRF Export Policy (vpn-a-export)

The vpn-a-export policy adds two BGP communities (route targets) to exported VPN routes:

community add vpn-a-target;

community add vpn-m-target;

accept;

The vpn-a-target community corresponds to target:65512:1.

The vpn-m-target community corresponds to target:65512:2.

Policy-Options (Community Definitions)

community vpn-a-target members target:65512:1;

community vpn-m-target members target:65512:2;

This confirms that routes exported from this VRF will have BOTH target:65512:1 and target:65512:2.

Evaluating the Answer Choices

✅ Option A: "VPN routes are exported with the target:65512:1 and target:65512:2 route targets."

The vpn-a-export policy explicitly adds both vpn-a-target (65512:1) and vpn-m-target (65512:2) to exported routes.

This is correct. ✅

❌ Option B: "You cannot use the vrf-target and vrf-export statements in the same VRF."

This is incorrect.

Juniper allows the use of both vrf-target and vrf-export in the same VRF:

vrf-target is used for importing routes.

vrf-export defines export policies (which can add additional route targets).

This is incorrect. ❌

❌ Option C: "VPN routes with the target:65512:1 and target:65512:2 route targets are imported."

The vrf-target target:65512:1; statement only controls importing routes.

The import policy does not include target:65512:2, so routes tagged with target:65512:2 alone would not be imported into this VRF.

This is incorrect. ❌

❌ Option D: "VPN routes are exported with only the target:65512:1 route target."

The export policy (vpn-a-export) clearly adds both 65512:1 and 65512:2.

This is incorrect. ❌

Final Answer:

✅ A. VPN routes are exported with the target:65512:1 and target:65512:2 route targets.

Verification from Juniper Documentation

Juniper MPLS L3VPN Configuration Guide confirms that vrf-target is used for importing, while vrf-export can be used for exporting multiple route targets.

Juniper Routing Policy Documentation states that export policies can add multiple BGP communities (route targets).

RFC 4364 (BGP/MPLS IP VPNs) defines the use of route targets for VPN route control.

Analyzing the Exhibit and Understanding the Issue

The exhibit shows BGP configurations on CE-1 and PE-1, which are connected via EBGP.

CE-1 (Customer Edge)

Uses AS 64511 and establishes an EBGP session with PE-1 (AS 65550).

Configured to export 10 static routes (192.168.1.0/24 - 192.168.10.0/24) using the static-to-bgp policy.

PE-1 (Provider Edge)

Uses AS 65550 and is peering with CE-1 (AS 64511).

Configured with a prefix-limit of 5 on received routes from CE-1.

Teardown enabled, meaning if more than 5 prefixes are received, the BGP session is shut down.

Identifying the Problem

CE-1 is correctly configured with peer AS 65550, so Option B ("CE-1 is configured with an incorrect peer AS") is incorrect ❌.

CE-1 is advertising exactly 10 static routes (as per policy).

PE-1 has a prefix-limit maximum 5 with teardown enabled.

This means that when CE-1 advertises more than 5 prefixes, PE-1 shuts down the BGP session.

BGP moves to the "Active" state, indicating that the session has been disrupted and PE-1 is trying to re-establish the connection.

CE-1 is reachable since the session was initially established before the limit was exceeded, so Option D ("CE-1 is unreachable") is incorrect ❌.

CE-1 is not advertising its entire routing table, only the static prefixes listed in the policy, so Option A ("CE-1 is advertising its entire routing table") is incorrect ❌.

Correct Answer

✅ C. The prefix limit has been reached on PE-1

Verification from Juniper Documentation

Juniper BGP Prefix Limit Documentation confirms that exceeding the prefix limit with teardown causes the BGP session to go into "Active" state.

Juniper Troubleshooting Guide for BGP Peering Issues states that when a BGP session reaches the prefix limit and has teardown enabled, the session is terminated.