Refer to the Exhibit.
— Exhibit –[edit]
user@router# show protocols bgp
group ebgp {
import block-martian;
family inet {

unicast;
}
peer-as 65530;
neighbor 172.22.135.37;
}
[edit]
user@router# show policy-options
policy-statement block-martian {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 0.0.0.0/8 orlonger reject;
route-filter 127.0.0.0/8 orlonger reject;
route-filter 191.255.0.0/16 orlonger reject;
route-filter 192.0.0.0/24 orlonger reject;
route-filter 223.255.255.0/24 orlonger reject;
route-filter 240.0.0.0/4 orlonger reject;
}
}
then reject;
}
[edit]

You have established a peering with an EBGP neighbor, but the peer’s 172.0.0.0/8 routes show as
hidden.
Referring to the exhibit, what is causing the problem?

Refer to the Exhibit.

A customer is not seeing direct routes in the LDP database.
Referring to the exhibit, which configuration is required on router R2 to advertise labels
corresponding to direct routes?

Refer to the Exhibit.
— Exhibit –user@router# show policy-options
policy-statement isis-export {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 172.22.135.0/8 orlonger reject;
route-filter 172.22.135.0/24 orlonger accept;
}
then reject;
}
term 2 {
from {
protocol isis;
route-filter 10.0.0.0/8 longer;
route-filter 10.0.0.0/24 longer accept;
}
then reject;
}
}
— Exhibit —
You are asked to block the 10.0.0.0/8 IS-IS routes from being redistributed into other protocols.

You still want the existing 10.0.0.0/25 IS-IS routes to continue to be redistributed. You have
applied an export policy as shown in the exhibit, however, the 10.0.0.0/8 routes are still being
redistributed.
What is causing the problem?

Refer to the Exhibit.
— Exhibit –user@P1# show policy-options policy-statement imp-bgp1 term 1 {
from {
protocol bgp;
route-filter 0.0.0.0/0 orlonger;
}
then {
preference 245;
}
}
user@P1# show protocols bgp group IBGP
local-address 172.24.255.1;
family inet {

unicast;
}
family inet-vpn {
unicast;
}
cluster 172.24.255.1;
peer-as 50;
neighbor 172.24.255.3;
neighbor 172.24.255.2 {
local-preference 200;
import imp-bgp1;
}
neighbor 172.24.255.4;
— Exhibit —
The operator of the network shown in the exhibit wants to make 172.24.255.2 the preferred path
for routes. However, the router still prefers a different peer.
What is the problem?

Refer to the Exhibit.
You are asked to troubleshoot a new Layer 3 VPN implementation. Each PE is not receiving

routes from the other PE or the remote CE network.
Referring to the exhibit, what should you do on PE2 to resolve the problem?

Refer to the Exhibit.
Your company is connecting a third VPLS site to your existing VPLS core. The new connection is
not working and you have been asked to resolve the problem.
Referring to the exhibit, what is the reason for the failed connection?

Refer to the Exhibit.
— Exhibit –

Referring to the exhibit, the bandwidth reservation on interface ge-5/3/1.0 appears to be incorrect.
Which statement is true?

Refer to the Exhibit.

Routers r1 and r2 are connected to each other by interfaces ge-5/3/0 and ge-5/3/1, respectively.
These routers do not form an RSVP neighborship.

Referring to the exhibit, which statement is correct?

Refer to the Exhibit.
PIM trace on R1:

You have configured PIM on R1. However, you notice that multicast traffic to 225.20.0.1/32 is
dropped. Referring to the exhibit, what is the problem?

Refer to the Exhibit.
— Exhibit –pim {
spt-threshold {
infinity mcast;
}
rp {
static {
address ;
}
}
interface ge-0/0/0.0 {
disable;
}
interface ge-0/0/3.0;
interface ge-0/0/4.0;
}
policy-statement mcast {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 224.0.0.0/4 orlonger;
}
then accept;

}
}
— Exhibit –Referring to the last-hop router’s information shown in the exhibit, multicast flows are using a
suboptimal path. What is the reason?