JN0-664 Exam Dumps : Service Provider Professional (JNCIP-SP)

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.

The resolve-vpn parameter is a BGP option that allows a router to resolve labeled VPN-IPv4 routes using unlabeled IPv4 routes received from another BGP peer with family inet labeled-unicast configured. This option enables interprovider VPNs without requiring MPLS labels between ASBRs or using VRF tables on ASBRs. In this scenario, you need to configure the resolve-vpn parameter under [edit protocols bgp group external family inet labeled-unicast] hierarchy level on both ASBRs.

In the provided exhibit, the configuration involves using a RIB (Routing Information Base) group to facilitate internet access for VPN-A Site 1 through PE-1. The goal is to provide VRF Internet access over a single connection.

1. **Understanding RIB Groups**:

- RIB groups allow for the import and export of routes between different routing tables.

- In this scenario, we have two RIBs: `inet.0` (the main routing table) and `VPN-A.inet.0` (the VRF-specific routing table).

2. **Statement Analysis**:

- **A. You must use the RIB group to move a default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Correct. To provide Internet access to VPN-A, the default route (0.0.0.0/0) learned via BGP in the `inet.0` table must be made available in the `VPN-A.inet.0` table. This is done using the RIB group to import the default route.

- **B. You do not need to use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Correct. Interface routes (connected routes) are typically directly added to both the global and the VRF routing tables without needing a RIB group. These routes are known to the VRF because the interfaces are part of the VRF configuration.

- **C. You do not need to use the RIB group default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Incorrect. As discussed, the default route needs to be imported into the VRF's routing table using a RIB group to enable Internet access for the VRF.

- **D. You must use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

- Incorrect. Interface routes are directly associated with the VRF interfaces and are automatically known to the VRF routing table. There is no need to use a RIB group for these routes.

**Conclusion**:

The correct answers are:

**A. You must use the RIB group to move a default route, which is learned through BGP, from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

**B. You do not need to use the RIB group to move interface routes from the inet.0 table to the VPN-A.inet.0 table.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on RIB Groups: [RIB Groups

- Junos OS VPNs Configuration Guide: [Junos VPNs