Three versions for JN0-352 exam materials are available, and you can choose the most suitable one according to your own needs. JN0-352 PDF version is printable, and if you like the hard one, you can print them into paper. JN0-352 Soft test engine supports MS operating system, and it can install in more than 200 computers, and if can also stimulate the real exam environment, so that you know the procedures for the exam. JN0-352 Online soft test engine is convenient and easy to learn, and it has testing history and performance review, and you can have a review what you have learnt.
| Section | Weight | Objectives |
|---|---|---|
| Layer 2 Security | 10-15% | - Layer 2 firewall filters and security features - Port security, MAC limiting and storm control - DHCP snooping, Dynamic ARP Inspection and IP Source Guard |
| IP Multicast | 5-10% | - IGMP operation and configuration - Multicast routing monitoring and troubleshooting - PIM Dense Mode, Sparse Mode and RP mechanisms |
| BGP | 15-20% | - Routing policies, filtering and common troubleshooting - Route advertisement, attributes and path selection - Neighbor relationships and session establishment |
| Layer 2 Switching and VLANs | 15-20% | - VLAN concepts, configuration, trunking and tagging - Link Aggregation Groups (LAG) and Virtual Chassis - Spanning Tree Protocol (STP, RSTP, MSTP) operation and configuration |
| Tunnels and Overlays | 5-10% | - Overlay network design and connectivity - Tunnel types, encapsulation and operation - GRE, IP-IP and dynamic tunnel configuration |
| IS-IS | 10-15% | - Adjacency establishment, levels and metrics - Configuration and route exchange - Scalable enterprise deployment and troubleshooting |
| OSPF | 15-20% | - Configuration, verification and troubleshooting - Neighbor formation, area design and LSA types - Route summarization and redistribution |
| Protocol Independent Routing | 10-15% | - Basic routing policy and filter operation - Routing tables, static routes and route preference - Routing instances and route selection criteria |
| High Availability and Resiliency | 5-10% | - Network resiliency design and troubleshooting - Redundancy protocols and failover mechanisms - Graceful restart and non-stop routing |
Iif you still spend a lot of time studying and waiting for JN0-352 qualification examination, then you need our JN0-352 test prep, which can help solve all of the above problems. I can guarantee that our study materials will be your best choice. Our JN0-352 valid practice questions have three different versions, including the PDF version, the software version and the online version, to meet the different needs, our JN0-352 Study Materials have many advantages, and you can free download the demo of our JN0-352 exam questios to have a check.
NEW QUESTION # 105
Click the Exhibit button. A network includes several autonomous systems that exchange routing information using BGP. Multiple BGP routes exist for the same prefix. Referring to the exhibit, which attribute would BGP use first when selecting a preferred route?
Answer: D
Explanation:
The Junos BGP path selection algorithm proceeds through a strict, ordered sequence of comparison steps, and once next-hop reachability and route preference (administrative distance) have been confirmed as equal, local preference is the very first BGP-specific path attribute evaluated in the decision process. A route carrying a higher local preference value is always chosen over a competing route to the same prefix with a lower local preference, and this comparison takes absolute precedence over every subsequent attribute in the algorithm; if local preference values differ between candidate paths, the selection process concludes at this step without ever needing to examine AS path length, origin type, or MED at all. Only when two or more competing paths share an identical local preference value does the algorithm proceed to its third step, comparing AS path length and preferring the shortest, and only after a further tie does it move on to origin type (preferring IGP-origin over EGP-origin, and EGP-origin over incomplete), followed by MED comparison (preferring the lowest value, and only among routes learned from the same neighboring AS by default). Because local preference is evaluated strictly before all three of the other listed attributes, it is the attribute BGP consults first among the choices given, making it the deciding factor in scenarios such as this exhibit where multiple autonomous systems advertise competing paths toward the same 192.168.1.0/24 prefix.
NEW QUESTION # 106
Which two events cause a router to advertise a connected network to OSPF neighbors? (Choose two.)
Answer: A,D
Explanation:
When an OSPF adjacency is established, the router will begin to advertise its connected networks to its OSPF neighbors.
When an interface is configured with the OSPF passive option, the router will advertise the connected network but will not attempt to form OSPF adjacencies on that interface.
NEW QUESTION # 107
You have traffic for a video streaming application traversing a GRE tunnel in your network and users are reporting poor performance. Both ends of the tunnel are using the default settings for a gigabit Ethernet interface, but you observe excessive packet drops due to exceeding the MTU.
Which two steps would you take to improve connectivity for this application? (Choose two.)
Answer: B,D
Explanation:
The described symptom - excessive packet drops specifically attributed to exceeding the MTU on a GRE tunnel carrying full-size video streaming traffic across default-MTU gigabit Ethernet interfaces - is a direct consequence of the 24 bytes of GRE encapsulation overhead pushing packets that were already at or near the standard 1500-byte Ethernet MTU past the physical interface's transmission limit once the outer GRE and IP headers are added. The most durable fix is to proactively increase the physical member interfaces' MTU beyond the 1500-byte default - to 1524 bytes or higher - which provides sufficient headroom to absorb the full GRE encapsulation overhead without ever causing the fully encapsulated packet to exceed the interface's transmission capability, allowing full-size 1500-byte payloads to pass through the tunnel intact and without fragmentation or drops. As a complementary measure, configuring the clear-dont-fragment-bit option on the tunnel or member interfaces instructs Junos to clear the DF (don't fragment) bit on oversized packets rather than dropping them outright when they do exceed the available MTU, allowing the Packet Forwarding Engine to fragment and later reassemble the traffic instead of silently discarding it, which directly addresses the reported packet loss even under transient conditions. Simply raising the MTU only to 1500 bytes fails to account for the 24-byte GRE overhead and would not resolve the underlying oversize condition. Routing the tunnel over a higher-bandwidth link addresses potential congestion but does nothing to correct an MTU-based packet-size violation, which is the root cause explicitly identified in this scenario. Reference topics: Junos Enterprise Routing - Tunneling, GRE MTU Sizing and Fragmentation Handling for High-Throughput Applications.
NEW QUESTION # 108
You have configured a GRE tunnel from your local router with tunnel source 10.0.0.1 to a remote router at destination 192.168.0.1. The tunnel is functioning until you commit set routing-options static route 0.0.0.0/0 next-hop gr-0/0/0. This configuration causes the tunnel to go down. Which statement is correct in this scenario?
Answer: A
Explanation:
A GRE tunnel's outer, delivery-layer packets are forwarded using the router's ordinary underlay routing table, meaning the tunnel destination address (192.168.0.1 in this case) must itself be resolvable to a physical, non-tunnel next hop for the encapsulated packets to actually leave the router. Before this configuration change, the default route (or some more specific route) presumably pointed toward a real physical next hop, allowing the router to reach 192.168.0.1 and keep the tunnel operational. When the administrator commits a static default route of 0.0.0.0/0 with a next hop of gr-0/0/0, every destination lookup that previously fell back to the default route -- including the lookup for the tunnel's own destination address, 192.168.0.1, since no more specific route exists for it -- now recurses through the GRE interface itself. This creates a circular dependency: the router needs to route to 192.168.0.1 to keep the tunnel up, but the only route it has to reach 192.168.0.1 now points back into the tunnel that requires 192.168.0.1 to already be reachable, so the interface's next-hop resolution fails and the tunnel drops. This is an entirely valid and common GRE design pitfall rather than any platform restriction; GRE interfaces can be legitimately used as static route next hops, do not require loopback-sourced encapsulation, and do not require a /32 host route to resolve their destination, provided that route does not recursively point back through the tunnel.
NEW QUESTION # 109
How does BGP prevent routing loops between internal peers?
Answer: A
Explanation:
BGP employs two distinct loop-prevention mechanisms depending on whether peers are external or internal to the same autonomous system. Between external peers (EBGP), loop prevention relies on the AS path attribute: every time a route crosses an AS boundary, the local AS number is prepended to the path, and a router rejects any incoming route whose AS path already contains its own AS number, since that would indicate the route has looped back around. Between internal peers (IBGP) within the same AS, however, the AS path attribute never changes, because IBGP does not add AS numbers as routes are readvertised internally
- meaning AS path alone cannot detect an internal loop. Instead, IBGP enforces a strict split-horizon-style rule: a router that learns a route via IBGP must never readvertise that route to another IBGP peer. This rule guarantees that every IBGP speaker within the AS must be directly peered with every other IBGP speaker (a logical full mesh) in order for all routers to receive all routes, since no IBGP router will relay IBGP-learned routes onward on another router's behalf. This full-mesh requirement is precisely why techniques such as route reflection and confederations were later developed - they preserve the same loop-prevention guarantee while relaxing the physical full-mesh peering burden. VRRP and BFD serve entirely unrelated purposes (gateway redundancy and fast failure detection, respectively) and play no role in BGP loop prevention.
Reference topics: Junos Enterprise Routing - BGP, IBGP Split-Horizon and the Full-Mesh Requirement.
NEW QUESTION # 110
......
If you are willing to purchase valid Juniper JN0-352 reliable vce exam simulator, you should be eagle-eyed since there are so much information on the internet. Valid products are hard to tell, once you find them, you will fell as if you'd found a priceless treasure. Our JN0-352 reliable vce exam simulator will be your priceless products. Our passing rate is 100% recent two years. We can assure you that No Pass Full Refund. Our materials are valid and the best absolutely.
Valid Test JN0-352 Vce Free: https://www.vceengine.com/JN0-352-vce-test-engine.html