Click the Exhibit Button.

Referring to the exhibit, which two statements about the BGP connection are correct? (Choose two.)
Click the Exhibit Button.
Referring to the exhibit, which two statements about the BGP connection are correct? (Choose two.)
The exhibit indicates that the local device has an AS configuration mismatch with its peer. The error message 'Open Message Error subcode 2 (bad peer AS number), Reason: peer 192.168.1.1 (Internal AS 101) claims 100, 101 configured' clearly shows that the local device expects its peer to be in AS 101 but the peer is reporting AS 100. This means the peer expects the local device to have AS 100 while it has configured AS 101. Therefore, the correct statements are: 'The local device has AS 100 configured but the peer is expecting AS 101' and 'The local device has AS 101 configured but the peer is expecting AS 100.' This connection issue does not specify whether the session is EBGP or IBGP, making those options less clear given the information available. The key evidence in the logs is the AS number mismatch. Consequently, the correct answers are that the local device has AS 101 configured but the peer is expecting AS 100, and vice versa.
This question regarding the eBGP/iBGP communication conundrum is tricky: on the one hand we focus on the 192.168.1.2 router and this has got AS 101 configured, on the other hand, the remote router (192.168.1.1) claims as its AS the number 100. Since this log demonstrates a misconfiguration, who's point of view will be preponderant? It is no quite clear why this should be an eBGP session because putting the same AS number on the remote BGP speaker would solve the problem. Besides, we are taking the point of view of the log poducing router. The answer to demonstrate the session should be an eBGP one is the TCP connection is made with the source and IP addresses of only one subnet (these routers share a L2 link) and this complies with eBGP best practices for directly connected BGP speakers. iBGP speakers should source its TCP session from a loopback interface, thusly having diferent subnet sourced IP address for this endeavor.
Elven King, what if 192.168.1.1 and 1.2 are loopback IPs?
This is correct as per juniper model exam