Two companies, A and B, are connected as separate customers on an SRX5800 residing on two
virtual routers (VR-A and VR-B). These companies have recently been merged and now operate
under a common IT security policy. You have been asked to facilitate communication between
these VRs. Which two methods will accomplish this task? (Choose two.)
A.
Use instance-import to share the routes between the two VRs.
B.
Create logical tunnel interfaces to interconnect the two VRs.
C.
Use a physical connection between VR-A and VR-B to interconnect them.
D.
Create a static route using the next-table action in both VRs.
Explanation:
Logical or physical connections between instances on the same Junos device and route between
the connected instances
Reference :http://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB21260
Not Right ! B and c is correct . look and AJSEC book part 1 chapter 4 page 31
@nonamano : Your’re wrong . the answer is right . b and c is regarding LSYS and VRs there’re difference between both .
The answwer is A & D…what @ nonamano said is for LSYS ..this one is for routing-instances as VR.
I agree, A, D, are ways used to shared routes between VR.
B,C if it was talking about LSYS.
Really Guys for routing instance all option are valid and can works ,and for LSYS interconnect the available options are physical , interconnect-LSYS and external device for connection
so really I’m confused the question should be more specific .
Hello Mahmoud ,
B and C are correct. If you want to share routes between routing tables you can use import-rib or import-instance , next-table option can use only for uni-directorial applications .
D is wrong as “Create a static route using the next-table action in both VRs.” it can lead to loops when you use next-table in both VRs and it will not be committed.
So correct Answers are B,C
https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB12985&actp=search
Commit fails with a ‘next-table may loop’ message.
B,C
i think all answers are correct
why do u think that A & D are wrong