traceroute to 10.1.15.2 (10.1.15.2), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 10.1.36.1 (10.1.36.1) 0.651 ms 7.834 ms 0.506 ms
2 10.1.23.1 (10.1.23.1) 0.5 ms 0.5 ms 0.5 ms
3 * * *
4 * * *

Referring to the exhibit, which statement is correct?

user@router# run show route /24
inet.0: 142 destinations, 142 routes (141 active, 0 holddown, 1 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
/24 *[OSPF/10] 04:10:20

>to 172.25.213.11 via ge-1/0/1.0
to 172.25.213.23 via ge-1/0/2.0

In the exhibit, what does the (>) symbol indicate?

You have been asked to establish reachability between Router 1’s and Router 2’s loopback
addresses as shown in the exhibit.

Which two steps will accomplish this task? (Choose two.)

[edit routing-options]
user@router# show
static {
defaults {
metric 10;
preference 10;
}
route 10.10.10.0/24 {
next-hop 192.168.100.1;
qualified-next-hop 192.168.200.1;
preference 6;
}
metric 8;
}
}

Given the configuration shown in the exhibit, which statement is correct about traffic matching the
route 10.10.10.0/24?

user@router> show route
inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
10.10.10.91/32 *[Direct/0] 00:09:40
>via lo0.0
10.10.10.92/32 *[OSPF/10] 00:01:50, metric 1
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
100.100.1.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:01:50
Reject
172.16.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:06:09
>via ge-0/0/2.0
172.16.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 00:06:09
Local via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.0.0/16 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06
Reject
192.168.0.0/17 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06

>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.50.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.51.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
user@router> show configuration policy-options
policy-statement demo {
term 1 {
from {
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 longer accept;
}
then reject;
}
}
user@router> show configuration protocols ospf
export demo;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface ge-0/0/2.0;
}

Given the configuration and routing table shown in the exhibit, which routes will be advertised to
OSPF neighbors because of the demo policy?

user@router> show route
inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
10.10.10.91/32 *[Direct/0] 00:09:40
>via lo0.0
10.10.10.92/32 *[OSPF/10] 00:01:50, metric 1
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
100.100.1.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:01:50
Reject
172.16.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:06:09
>via ge-0/0/2.0
172.16.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 00:06:09
Local via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.0.0/16 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06
Reject
192.168.0.0/17 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.50.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.51.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06

>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
user@router> show configuration policy-options
policy-statement demo {
term 1 {
from {
protocol static;
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 orlonger accept;
}
then accept;
}
}
user@router> show configuration protocols ospf
export demo;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface ge-0/0/2.0;
}

Given the configuration and routing table shown in the exhibit, which routes will be advertised to
OSPF neighbors because of the demo policy?

user@router> show configuration firewall
familyinet {
filter demo {
term example {
from {
source-address {
100.100.100.0/24;
}
destination-address {
200.200.200.0/24;
} }
then {
reject;
} }
term testing {
from {
source-address {
10.10.10.0/28;
}
destination-address {
200.200.200.0/24;
}

}
then sample;
}
term results {
from {
address {
200.200.200.0/24;
} }
then accept;
}
term final {
thenpolicer LAPD;
} }
}

Given the configuration shown in the exhibit, what will happen to traffic from source 10.10.10.25
destined to 200.200.200.1?

user@router> show route
inet.0: 9 destinations, 9 routes (9 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
+ = Active Route, – = Last Active, * = Both
10.10.10.91/32 *[Direct/0] 00:09:40
>via lo0.0
10.10.10.92/32 *[OSPF/10] 00:01:50, metric 1
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
100.100.1.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:01:50
Reject
172.16.1.0/24 *[Direct/0] 00:06:09
>via ge-0/0/2.0
172.16.1.1/32 *[Local/0] 00:06:09
Local via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.0.0/16 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06
Reject
192.168.0.0/17 *[Aggregate/130] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.50.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0
192.168.51.0/24 *[Static/5] 00:00:06
>to 172.16.1.2 via ge-0/0/2.0

user@router> show configuration policy-options
policy-statement demo {
term 1 {
from {
protocol aggregate;
route-filter 192.168.0.0/16 longer;
}
then accept;
}
}
user@router> show configuration protocols ospf
export demo;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface ge-0/0/2.0;
}

Given the configuration and routing table shown in the exhibit, which routes will be advertised to
OSPF neighbors because of the demo policy?

[edit policy-options]
user@router# show
policy-statementpolicyABC {
term A {
from {
protocol rip;
route-filter 192.168.1.0/24 longer;
}
then accept;
}
}
[edit protocols ospf]
user@router# show
exportpolicyABC;
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface ge-0/0/0.0;
interface lo0.0;
}

Referring to the exhibit, which two statements are true? (Choose two.)

[edit interfaces]
user@router# show
…
lo0 {
unit 0 {
familyinet {
filter {
input protect-loopback;
}
address 192.168.100.1/32;
} }
}

Given the configuration shown in the exhibit, what is the function of the protect-loopback filter?