Q: 2
You are implementing traffic engineering in your MPLS network. You must ensure that the MPLS
routes are used to traverse your network. Your solution should not affect IGP routes in your route
tables.
In this scenario, which traffic engineering setting will accomplish this behavior?
Options
Discussion
Option B
B. Keeps MPLS in play and leaves IGP untouched, which matches the requirement.
Pretty sure you'll see this one in the official guide and Juniper practice labs. B
I went with A here since in some lab guides, bgp-igp-both-ribs is mentioned for handling TE paths. Maybe I'm off but the wording sounds like you should include both in RIBs. Official practice tests help clarify this kind of scenario I think.
encountered exactly similar question in my exam in Juniper practice, it's B. mpls-forwarding makes sure MPLS paths are used but IGP tables stay untouched. Pretty confident on this one unless something changed in recent software.
I’d say B. The mpls-forwarding option makes MPLS pick the path without changing your IGP tables. Fits the "not affect IGP" part best.
B is the way to go here since 'mpls-forwarding' makes sure only the MPLS traffic engineering paths are used for forwarding, but it doesn't touch regular IGP routing tables. That's what the question is getting at. I'm pretty sure about this since it's straight from Juniper docs. Disagree?
Don’t think it’s B this time, I’m picking D. People sometimes pick A here but that one can be a bit misleading.
D , because bgp can direct traffic paths and sometimes that's how TE is set. But A feels like a trap option.
Makes sense to me, B. Keeps IGP tables out of it just like the question asks.
Be respectful. No spam.
