Refer -
ring to the exhibit, which two statements are correct for a route advertised by R1 towards R4? (Choose two.)
Refer -
ring to the exhibit, which two statements are correct for a route advertised by R1 towards R4? (Choose two.)
In the scenario depicted, R1 is advertising a route towards R4. Let's analyze the behavior of R2 in this context. First, for a route received from an iBGP neighbor (R1 in this case), the BGP next hop is typically preserved when advertised to an eBGP peer. In this case, the next hop for the route advertised from R1 to R4 will be set to R2's interface address, which is 14.1.1.1, confirming option A. Second, R2, when advertising towards an eBGP peer (R4), will set the next hop to its own IP address used in the eBGP session, which would indeed be its loopback address (192.168.2.2), making option C correct. Therefore, options A and C are the correct statements.
AB where the as path must be 110
I agree with you. I've investigated this question with GNS3 and have definitely seen in Wireshark that D is not correct: sending router (R2 in our case) adds its AS (150) to AS_PATH.
shouldn't R2 set the AS-Path to 110?
I agree and have tried rationalizing this. Maybe Juniper is testing the understanding of an aggregate addresses which would nullify the original value...the end result should still be the 110idk
Im having a hard time justifying this question. A is absolutely correct. D however is shaky! the AS path is set to 110, not 150. but NULL?
i think when they say null they refer to "()" that would be equivalent to their local AS, so i think A D is correct.
Could it be A and C? From R1, the next hop would be the R2's loopback as it's iBGP (option C) and from R2 towards R4, R2 would use the interface IP as next hop as it's eBGP (option A).
Probably A,C A if peer with interface address C if peer with loopback address(multihop)
Only A is correct, may be they have done some typo in Question, May be B is 110 instead of 150
R2 should put 110 but since it's not the case, D is the answer that makes more sense, R2 will advertise null to avoid becoming transit https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/routing-policy/topics/concept/policy-configuring-as-path-regular-expressions-to-use-as-routing-policy-match-conditions.html In the following example, locally administered AS 2 is connected to AS 1 (10.2.2.6) and AS 3. AS 3 advertises its routes to AS 2, but the administrator for AS 2 does not want to advertise AS 3 routes to AS 1 and thereby allow transit traffic from AS 1 to AS 3 through AS 2. To prevent transit traffic, the export policy only-my-routes is applied to AS 1. It permits advertisement of routes from AS 2 to AS 1 but prevents advertisement of routes for AS 3 (or routes for any other connected AS) to AS 1:
A and D ARE correct. R2 sets null as-path (i) when advertise the prefix to R1.
A is correct and D is correct because R2 set as-path as null when receive the prefix from R1.