Online Access Free JN0-694 Exam Questions
| Exam Code: | JN0-694 |
| Exam Name: | Enterprise Routing and Switching Support, Professional (JNCSP-ENT) |
| Certification Provider: | Juniper |
| Free Question Number: | 52 |
| Posted: | Sep 07, 2026 |
-- Exhibit - -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
On R1, the interface fe-0/0/1 is assigned to the default routing instance and fe-0/0/2 is assigned to a virtual router instance named VR-1.
Referring to the exhibit, the static route 200.200.200.200/32 is missing from the routing table of the default routing instance.
What should you do on R1 to resolve this problem?
-- Exhibit --
user@router# show class-of-service
classifiers {
inet-precedence ipp-test {
import default;
forwarding-class best-effort {
loss-priority low code-points be;
}
forwarding-class expedited-forwarding {
loss-priority low code-points af21;
}
forwarding-class assured-forwarding {
loss-priority low code-points af11;
}
forwarding-class network-control {
loss-priority low code-points nc1;
}
}
}
user@router# show firewall
filter MF {
term 1 {
from {
precedence 0;
}
then forwarding-class best-effort;
}
term 2 {
from {
precedence 5;
}
then forwarding-class expedited-forwarding;
}
term 3 {
from {
precedence 2;
}
then forwarding-class assured-forwarding;
}
term 4 {
from {
precedence 6;
}
then forwarding-class network-control;
}
term 5 {
then accept;
}
}
user@router> show class-of-service
...
Code point type: inet-precedence
Alias Bit pattern af11 001 af21 010 af31 011 af41 100 be 000 cs6 110 cs7 111 ef 101 nc1 110 nc2 111 -- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
Traffic with the IPP value af21 should be assigned to the expedited forwarding queue; however, this traffic is not being assigned to that queue.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing this behavior?
-- Exhibit --
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# show vr1 routing-options
instance-import [ vr1 vr2 ];
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# show vr2 routing-options
instance-import [ vr1 vr2 ];
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# top show policy-options policy-statement vr1
term 1 {
from instance vr1;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}
[edit routing-instances]
user@router# top show policy-options policy-statement vr2
term 1 {
from instance vr2;
then accept;
}
term 2 {
then reject;
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
A network engineer wants to leak routes between routing instances vr1 and vr2. No routes from vr2 are showing up in vr1.
Which change should the engineer make to accomplish this task?
-- Exhibit --
policy-statement test_route_filter {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 longer;
route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer {
metric 5;
accept;
}
route-filter 192.168.0.0/8 orlonger accept;
}
then {
metric 10;
accept;
}
}
term 2 {
then {
metric 20;
accept;
}
}
}
-- Exhibit -
Click the Exhibit button.
Given test route 192.168.1.0/24 and the configuration shown in the exhibit, what is the expected result?
-- Exhibit --
policy-options {
policy-statement accept-static {
from protocol static;
then accept;
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
The policy shown in the exhibit is deployed on a router and used as the only BGP export policy. The router is sending only one BGP route to its peers. However, when you run the CLI command test policy accept-static 0.0.0.0/0, the policy matches thousands of routes.
Which statement explains this discrepancy?