-- Exhibit --
interfaces {
ge-0/0/0 {
vlan-tagging;
unit 100 {
vlan-id 100;
family inet {
address 192.168.100.97/30;
}
family iso;
}
unit 200 {
vlan-id 200;
family inet {
address 192.168.100.94/30;
}
family iso;
}
}
fxp0 {
description "MGMT INTERFACE - DO NOT DELETE";
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 10.210.10.11/27;
}
}
}
lo0 {
unit 0 {
family inet {
address 192.168.100.1/32;
}
family iso {
address 49.1111.1921.6801.0001.00;
}
}
}
}
protocols {
isis {
interface ge-0/0/0.100;
interface ge-0/0/0.200;
}
}
-- Exhibit --
Click the Exhibit button.
An operator is unable to establish any IS-IS adjacencies on a router in the network.
Based on the configuration shown in the exhibit, what is the problem?
Click on the arrows to vote for the correct answer
A. B. C. D.A
Based on the configuration provided in the exhibit, it appears that the Juniper router is configured with three interfaces: ge-0/0/0, fxp0, and lo0. The ge-0/0/0 interface has two sub-interfaces (unit 100 and unit 200), which are configured with VLANs and IP addresses. The fxp0 interface is configured with an IP address for management purposes, and the lo0 interface is configured with an IP address and an ISO address.
The protocols section of the configuration shows that the router is running the ISIS protocol and has configured the ge-0/0/0.100 and ge-0/0/0.200 interfaces for ISIS.
The problem reported in the question is that the operator is unable to establish any ISIS adjacencies on the router. In order to troubleshoot this problem, we need to look at the configuration to see if there are any issues.
Option A suggests that the lo0 interface needs to be configured in the ISIS hierarchy. This is not necessarily true. While the lo0 interface is configured with an IP address and an ISO address, it is not clear from the configuration whether it needs to be included in the ISIS hierarchy. Furthermore, the problem reported by the operator is with the ge-0/0/0 interfaces, not the lo0 interface.
Option B suggests that each network interface needs a unique family ISO address. This is also not true. While it is important that each interface has a unique ISO address, the configuration already has unique ISO addresses assigned to each interface. Therefore, this is not the cause of the problem.
Option C suggests that the ISIS level for each interface must be specified. This is partially true. The ISIS level does need to be specified for each interface that is configured for ISIS. However, this is not the cause of the problem reported by the operator.
Option D suggests that the ISO address for the lo0 interface is not in hex format. This is also not true. The ISO address for the lo0 interface is in the correct format (49.1111.1921.6801.0001.00), which is a hexadecimal representation of the ISO address.
Therefore, none of the options listed in the question provide an accurate explanation for the problem reported by the operator. Without additional information, it is difficult to determine the exact cause of the problem. However, some potential causes of the problem could include incorrect ISIS configuration, issues with connectivity or routing, or a problem with the ISIS protocol itself. Further troubleshooting and analysis would be required to determine the root cause of the issue.