Cyber Monday 2024! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Juniper Exam JN0-363 Topic 5 Question 35 Discussion

Actual exam question for Juniper's JN0-363 exam
Question #: 35
Topic #: 5
[All JN0-363 Questions]

You want to share routes between two routing instances that you have configured?

What are two ways to accomplish this task? (Choose two.)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B, D

static route with a next-hop of next-table pointing to the appropriate routing table which contains more accurate information rib-groups to mirror routing information from one route-table to another. However, in many cases, in order to make this work, interface-routes also need to be mirrored. RIB Group policy can be used to constrain the routing information instance-import and instance-export statements configured within the individual routing-instances to leak routes from one table to another. Again, policy can be used here to constrain the routing information. This method is more straightforward than the rib-group method A final approach is to use physical interfaces or logical-tunnels to stitch routing-instances and use a routing protocol or static routes across this connection between the two routing-instances.


Contribute your Thoughts:

Mabel
5 months ago
B and D for the win! Although, I have to say, the 'non-forwarding instance' option sounds like something straight out of a comedy sketch. Can you imagine?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ryan
5 months ago
Haha, 'create a forwarding instance'? What is this, amateur hour? B and D all the way, folks.
upvoted 0 times
Alpha
3 months ago
Creating a forwarding instance is not necessary for this task.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanesa
3 months ago
Definitely, using a RIB group is the best option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Adell
3 months ago
I agree, B and D are the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Janey
3 months ago
Haha, 'create a forwarding instance'? What is this, amateur hour? B and D all the way, folks.
upvoted 0 times
...
Theodora
4 months ago
D) Use a RIB group
upvoted 0 times
...
Erinn
4 months ago
B) Configure an instance import policy
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Cassie
5 months ago
I agree with Mable and Geraldine. B and D are the obvious choices here. Although, I do wonder if anyone has actually tried the 'create a forwarding instance' approach. It sounds kind of silly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Geraldine
5 months ago
Definitely B and D. I can't imagine using a non-forwarding instance or creating a forwarding one for this task. That would just be weird.
upvoted 0 times
Tamera
4 months ago
It's good to know the most efficient ways to accomplish this task.
upvoted 0 times
...
Maira
4 months ago
Yeah, those two options make the most sense for sharing routes between routing instances.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cyril
5 months ago
I think configuring an instance import policy and using a RIB group are the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marvel
5 months ago
I agree, using a non-forwarding instance or creating a forwarding one seems unnecessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Latosha
6 months ago
I'm not sure about D), but I think A) Use a non-forwarding instance could be one of the ways.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mable
6 months ago
B and D for sure! The instance import policy and RIB group options seem like the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Katheryn
5 months ago
Definitely, those options provide the most efficient way to accomplish the task.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lasandra
5 months ago
I agree, using an instance import policy and RIB group is the best way to share routes between routing instances.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lili
6 months ago
I agree with Rosalind, but I also think D) Use a RIB group could be another way.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rosalind
6 months ago
I think the answer is B) Configure an instance import policy.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77