PrepAway - Latest Free Exam Questions & Answers

Author: seenagape

What is the reason the IS-IS adjacency fails?

3 comments

user@R1> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.1/30;
}

family iso;
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.1/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1001.0010.0100.00;
} } }
}
protocols {
isis {
level 1 disable;
interface ge-1/1/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}
}
user@R2> show
interfaces {
ge-1/1/0 {

unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.2/30;
}
family iso {
mtu 1496;
} }
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.2/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1002.0010.0200.00;
} } }
}
protocols {
isis {
interface ge-1/1/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}

}

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, R1 and R2 are directly connected using interface ge-1/1/0.
What is the reason the IS-IS adjacency fails?

Which two statements are true?

Leave a comment

user@router> show bgp summary
Groups: 2 Peers: 2 Down peers: 2
Table Tot Paths Act Paths Suppressed History Damp State Pending
inet.0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Peer AS InPkt OutPkt OutQ Flaps Last Up/Dwn State…
5.1.1.1 100 1 0 0 14:06 OpenConfirm
10.1.1.1 200 0 1 14:06 Active

Click the Exhibit button.
Two newly configured BGP peers have remained in the states shown in the exhibit for several
hours.
Which two statements are true? (Choose two.)

why is the 200.1.0.0/16 prefix failing to be advertised in BGP?

3 comments

user@router# run show route advertising-protocol bgp 192.168.12.1
user@router# run show route
inet.0: 11 destinations, 12 routes (11 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
2.2.2.2/32 *[Direct/0] 3w6d 03:57:51
> via lo0.0
192.168.12.0/24 *[Direct/0] 01:07:34
> via xe-0/0/0.0
192.168.12.2/32 *[Local/0] 01:07:34
Local via xe-0/0/0.0
200.1.0.0/16 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:58
Reject
[IS-IS/165] 00:10:57, metric 10
> to 200.1.1.2 via xe-0/0/3.0
200.1.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:29:21
> via xe-0/0/3.0
200.1.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 00:29:21
Local via xe-0/0/3.0
iso.0: 1 destinations, 1 routes (1 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
49.0000.0020.0200.2002/72

*[Direct/0] 3w4d 21:07:32
> via lo0.0
inet6.0: 3 destinations, 4 routes (3 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
2:2:2::2/128 *[Direct/0] 3w4d 21:22:24
> via lo0.0
[edit]
user@router# show policy-options
policy-statement adv-route {
term t1 {
from {
protocol isis;
route-filter 200.1.0.0/16 exact;
}
then accept;
}
term t2 {
then reject;
}
}
[edit]
user@router# show protocols bgp
group ebgp {
type external;
export adv-route;

neighbor 192.168.12.1 {
peer-as 65000;
}
}

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, why is the 200.1.0.0/16 prefix failing to be advertised in BGP?

Which username template should you use on the certificate authentication server’s configuration?

Leave a comment

A customer wants to implement X.509 certificate authentication on their users. They want to extract
the username from each certificate for accounting and single sign-on purposes. The correct
username syntax lies within the common name portion of the certificate’s subject field. Which
username template should you use on the certificate authentication server’s configuration?


Page 486 of 1,293« First...102030...484485486487488...500510520...Last »