interfaces {
ge-1/0/3 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 192.168.1.1/30;
} } }
ge-1/1/0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.1/30;
} } }
fxp0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {

address 10.2.1.13/28;
} } }
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.1.1/32;
address 127.0.0.1/32;
} } }
}
protocols {
ospf {
area 0.0.0.0 {
interface ge-1/0/3.0;
interface ge-1/1/0.0;
} }
}

Click the Exhibit button.
The router was just powered on.
Referring to the exhibit, what is the OSPF RID?

protocols {
isis {
level 1 disable;
interface ge-1/0/0.0 {
level 2 disable;
}
interface ge-1/1/0.0;
interface lo0.0;
}
}

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, what is the resulting behavior on interface ge-1/0/0?

[edit]
user@router# run show isis interface
IS-IS interface database:
Interface L CirID Level 1 DR Level 2 DR L1/L2 Metric
ge-1/0/2.0 3 0x1 router.00 router.00 10/10
lo0.0 0 0x1 Passive Passive 0/0

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, which two statements are true regarding the GE interface? (Choose two.)

user@R2> show
protocols {
isis {
export leak;

interface ge-1/1/0.0;
interface ge-1/1/1.0 {
level 1 disable;
}
interface lo0.0;
}
}
policy-options {
policy-statement leak {
term 1 {
from level 1;
to level 2;
then accept;
} }
}

Click the Exhibit button.
R1 and R2 have a Level 1 IS-IS adjacency. R2 participates in both Level 1 and Level 2, and is
receiving routes from a Level 2 neighbor. A policy on R2 has been created to leak routes to Level
1, but R1 is not receiving the routes.
Referring to the exhibit, what is the solution on R2?

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 {

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;
} }
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.100.10.2/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1001.0010.0200.00;
} } }
}

protocols {
isis {
interface ge-1/1/0.0;
interface lo0.0;
}
}

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the exhibit, R1 and R2 are directly connected using interface ge-1/1/0.
What happens as a result of the configurations?

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?

[edit]
user@router> show bgp summary
…
Peer AS InPkt OutPkt OutQ Flaps Last Up/Dwn State…
5.1.1.1 100 10 0 1 14:06 Established
10.1.1.1 200 10 0 1 14:06 Active
20.1.1.1 300 10 0 1 14:06 Idle

Click the Exhibit button.
Referring to the BGP peering sessions shown in the exhibit, which two statements are true?
(Choose two.)

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.)

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?

Click the Exhibit button.
You are asked to configure a new external BGP peering. You have configured BGP on R1 as
shown in the exhibit, however the BGP peering remains in Active state.
Which additional configuration is required on R1 to establish the BGP peering?