Pass the Juniper JNCIA-DC JN0-281 Questions and answers with CertsForce

Bidirectional Forwarding Detection is a lightweight, fast failure-detection mechanism used to quickly determine whether a forwarding path between two systems is operational. In Juniper data center networks, BFD is commonly paired with routing protocols such as BGP and OSPF to accelerate convergence. Instead of waiting for a routing protocol hold timer or dead interval to expire, BFD continuously exchanges small control packets between neighbors at a configured interval. If the local device stops receiving these control packets for a negotiated detection time, it declares the BFD session down.

This down event can then be used to immediately signal the routing protocol that the neighbor is no longer reachable, causing faster withdrawal of routes or faster reroute to alternate paths. This is critical in leaf-spine fabrics where rapid failover is expected to maintain application availability and to keep ECMP path sets current. BFD is designed to detect failures in the forwarding plane, including link failures, interface failures, or other failures that prevent packets from being successfully exchanged between the two endpoints. It is not intended to detect routing loops, and it does not specifically track route flaps as a function; flapping is a symptom that may occur when failures happen repeatedly.

Destination host unreachable messages are part of ICMP processing and are unrelated to BFD’s purpose. In short, BFD’s value is fast, protocol-independent failure detection for forwarding adjacency health.

Generated routes in Junos are used to conditionally create a route in the routing table when specific criteria are satisfied. They are policy-driven and allow operators to inject a prefix only when the device has the necessary supporting reachability or other configured conditions. This is useful in data center environments to ensure that certain aggregate or service prefixes are advertised only when the infrastructure can truly forward traffic toward the intended destinations. For example, a generated route can be used to advertise a summary prefix into BGP only if one or more contributing routes exist, preventing blackholing that could occur if a summary is advertised while downstream reachability is missing.

Generated routes do not create a separate routing table; routing tables are created by routing instances and related configuration constructs. They also are not intended simply to increase the number of advertisements. Their value is correctness and control, not volume. Finally, expanding a single advertisement into multiple routes is not the purpose of generated routes; that behavior is more aligned with route policies that manipulate announcements, prefix lists, or mechanisms that originate multiple prefixes by configuration.

In short, generated routes provide conditional route origination based on defined match conditions, enabling safer summarization and controlled advertisement patterns that are common in scalable data center routing designs.

Nonstop active routing is the Junos high availability capability that focuses on preserving routing protocol operation and routing information across a Routing Engine switchover. In platforms with redundant Routing Engines, a failure of the primary Routing Engine can otherwise reset routing protocol processes, tear down adjacencies, and trigger reconvergence. NSR mitigates this by synchronizing routing protocol state so that the backup Routing Engine can continue routing protocol operations with minimal disruption. This includes maintaining protocol session continuity and keeping the routing information base stable, which directly protects traffic that depends on those routes.

In data center environments, this is particularly important for routed fabrics where BGP or OSPF underlay reachability supports overlay services and east west application traffic. By keeping routing information consistent during the control-plane transition, NSR reduces route churn and helps avoid transient blackholing or microbursts caused by reconvergence.

GRES is closely related but addresses a different scope. GRES helps the forwarding plane continue forwarding during a Routing Engine switchover by preserving certain system and interface states. However, GRES alone does not guarantee that routing protocol sessions and routing information remain uninterrupted. BFD and LACP are valuable availability tools, but they are not Routing Engine redundancy features and do not preserve routing state during a Routing Engine failover.

In Junos, static routes are eligible to be exported into dynamic routing protocols if you configure an export policy that matches them. For management-only routes, especially default routes or specific management subnets used for out-of-band access, you often want to ensure they never leak into the production routing domain. The no-readvertise parameter is designed for this purpose. When you mark a static route as no-readvertise, Junos flags it so other routing protocols do not export or readvertise it, even if an export policy would otherwise match it. This helps keep the management plane isolated from the data plane and prevents accidental propagation of management reachability into the fabric underlay or overlay.

The reject and discard options control how packets are handled if they match the route, not whether the route is eligible to be exported. Preference 255 changes the route’s selection priority relative to other routes, but it does not prevent export. Therefore, no-readvertise is the correct configuration knob when the explicit goal is to prevent propagation of a management static route to other routers.

In Junos OSPF, the passive setting is used when you want the prefix on an interface to be advertised into OSPF, but you do not want the interface to form OSPF neighbor adjacencies or send OSPF Hello packets. This is a common data center requirement for server-facing, management, or loopback-related interfaces where you want the subnet to be reachable through the routing domain, but there is no OSPF-capable neighbor on that link. By making the interface passive, the router still includes the connected network in OSPF as an internal route, so other routers learn how to reach that subnet. At the same time, the interface does not participate in adjacency formation, which reduces unnecessary protocol chatter and eliminates the risk of accidentally forming neighbors on an untrusted or unintended segment.

The other options do not meet the requirement. Interface-type changes the OSPF network type behavior, such as broadcast or point-to-point, but it does not stop adjacency formation while still advertising the network. Strict-bfd relates to failure detection behavior when BFD is used with routing protocols and does not control whether OSPF forms neighbors. Link-protection is related to fast reroute and protection mechanisms, not suppressing OSPF adjacency on an interface.

In the BGP finite state machine, OpenConfirm indicates that the TCP session is already established and the BGP OPEN message exchange has successfully completed. At this point, both peers have agreed on critical session parameters such as BGP version, autonomous system numbers, hold time, and the BGP identifier. Because the OPEN messages have been processed, BGP transitions from OpenSent to OpenConfirm and then waits for the next control message that validates the session is operational.

Specifically, in OpenConfirm the local BGP process is waiting to receive a KEEPALIVE message from the neighbor, which confirms that the neighbor accepted the OPEN and is ready to bring the session to the Established state. If instead a NOTIFICATION message is received, it indicates an error condition and the session will be torn down. This is why option D is correct.

Option A describes OpenSent, where the router is waiting to receive an OPEN after sending its own OPEN. Option B aligns more closely with Connect, where BGP is still trying to complete the transport connection. Option C relates to Idle, where BGP waits for a start event or configuration to initiate the session. In data center BGP underlays and EVPN control planes, being stuck in OpenConfirm commonly points to policy mismatch, capability negotiation issues, or keepalive handling problems, rather than basic IP reachability.

A three-stage IP fabric is a scaled leaf-spine design that adds an additional layer above the spine layer to increase port scale and bandwidth. In common data center terminology, the stages are leaf, spine, and an upper spine layer often referred to as superspine. Traffic sourced from an endpoint attached to a leaf switch first enters the fabric at that leaf. If the destination is attached to a different leaf and the fabric is truly three-stage, the packet typically traverses from the source leaf up to a spine, then continues upward to the upper layer spine, then down to a destination spine, and finally down to the destination leaf. The option that best represents this stage progression is leaf to spine to spine to leaf, where the second spine in the sequence corresponds to the upper layer spine tier in a three-stage design.

By contrast, leaf to spine to leaf describes a two-tier leaf-spine fabric where a single spine hop connects any two leaves. The other options do not represent the standard end-to-end progression for traffic between leaves in a three-stage fabric. In practice, the underlay uses routed links with equal-cost multipath, so there can be multiple equal paths that still follow the same stage order. This preserves predictable forwarding behavior while allowing the fabric to scale beyond what a two-tier topology can support.

The diagram shows multiple autonomous systems, with each device labeled with a different AS number. Because the peers are in different autonomous systems, the correct BGP session type is external BGP. In a typical Juniper data center IP fabric underlay, this design is intentional: EBGP is used between leaf and spine devices to simplify policy boundaries, improve operational clarity, and avoid the additional mechanisms commonly required in large internal BGP designs.

In an EBGP-based underlay, neighbors are most commonly formed over the directly connected point-to-point links between leaf and spine. That means the BGP peering is established using the IP addresses configured on those physical routed interfaces, not loopback addresses. Using physically connected addresses aligns with the default EBGP behavior where the TTL is one hop, and it reduces configuration complexity because no multihop settings or additional reachability dependencies are required to bring up the session.

Peering using loopbacks is possible, but it typically requires EBGP multihop and a routing method to ensure reachability to the remote loopback before BGP can establish. That approach is more common for overlay control-plane sessions or for specific design requirements, rather than for the simplest and most common underlay implementation. Therefore, the two true statements are that the exhibit uses EBGP and that devices should peer using physically connected IP addresses.

In Junos routing and security contexts, martian addresses are IP prefixes that should not appear as valid, routable sources or destinations on normal interfaces because they are reserved, special-purpose, or otherwise not usable for general unicast forwarding. Treating these as invalid helps protect the control plane and prevents leakage of nonsensical routes into the fabric. This is especially relevant in data center underlays where strict routing hygiene is expected and where improper advertisements can cause blackholing or policy confusion.

The multicast range 224.0.0.0/4 is a classic martian example for unicast routing. These addresses are reserved for multicast and should not be accepted as ordinary unicast sources or carried as typical unicast reachability in an IP fabric. The loopback range 127.0.0.0/8 is also martian on physical networks because it is reserved for host self-reference and must never be forwarded by routers. Seeing it on an interface implies misconfiguration or spoofing.

The prefix 192.0.0.0/24 is reserved for special protocol and IETF assignments and is not intended for general use on public or private networks. As a result, it is commonly treated as martian in routing policy and input validation. By contrast, 172.36.0.0/24 and 198.60.0.0/16 are ordinary globally routable unicast space, so they are not martian by definition.

In Junos, a static route can be configured with multiple next hops. When you want a “primary and backup” behavior, the correct mechanism is a qualified next hop. A qualified next hop allows you to assign a different preference to each next hop for the same destination prefix. The static route with the best preference is selected as active, while the higher-preference value next hop remains available as a standby option. If the primary next hop becomes unusable, Junos can install the backup qualified next hop so forwarding continues with minimal operational change, which is a common requirement for data center edge or services routing where predictable failover is needed.

The key point in the question is “secondary next hop with a unique route preference value.” That wording maps directly to qualified next-hop behavior, because qualification is how Junos differentiates multiple next hops under the same route using distinct preference values. The retain option relates to keeping routes in the routing table under certain conditions and does not specifically create primary/backup next-hop selection based on preference. The resolve option concerns how the system resolves a next hop through another route and is not the feature that creates a preference-ranked secondary next hop. The install option is not the mechanism used to define backup next-hop preference for a static route.