Juniper JN0-664 Service Provider Professional (JNCIP-SP) Exam Practice Test

In an L2VPN scenario, the provider network connects two customer edge (CE) devices across a Layer 2 virtual private network. Let's analyze how OSPF operates in this setup.

1. **OSPF Neighborship in L2VPN**:

- An L2VPN provides a Layer 2 connection between two sites, making it transparent to Layer 3 protocols like OSPF. This means the CEs can form OSPF adjacencies directly with each other as if they were on the same local network.

2. **OSPF Configuration on CEs and PEs**:

- **Statement A: OSPF neighborship is formed between the CEs and PEs**:

- Incorrect. In an L2VPN, the provider's network is transparent to the OSPF running on the CEs. OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, not between the CEs and PEs.

- **Statement B: The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different**:

- Correct. Since OSPF adjacencies form directly between the CEs and not between CEs and PEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs can be different. The provider network acts as a transparent bridge, and OSPF doesn't see the PEs.

- **Statement C: The CE and PE OSPF areas must match**:

- Incorrect. As noted above, because the OSPF neighborship forms directly between the CEs, the OSPF areas on the CEs and PEs do not need to match.

- **Statement D: OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs**:

- Correct. The L2VPN makes the connection between the two CEs appear as a direct Layer 2 link, allowing them to form an OSPF adjacency directly.

**Conclusion**:

Given the above analysis, the correct statements are:

**B. The CE and PE OSPF areas can be different.**

**D. OSPF neighborship is formed between the two CEs.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on L2VPNs: [Configuring Layer 2 VPNs](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer-2-vpns-configuring.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Junos OS OSPF Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

BGP route target filtering can be configured on PE devices or on route reflectors (RRs). Configuring BGP route target filtering on RRs is more efficient and scalable, as it reduces the number of BGP sessions and updates between PE devices. To configure BGP route target filtering on RRs, the following steps are required:

Configure the family route-target statement under the BGP group or neighbor configuration on the RRs. This enables the exchange of the route-target address family between the RRs and their clients (PE devices). Configure the resolution rib bgp.l3vpn.0 resolution-ribs inet.0 statement under the routing-options configuration on the RRs. This enables the RRs to resolve next hops for VPN routes using the inet.0 routing table.

The explicit-null statement enables the PE router to send an MPLS label with a value of 0 (explicit null) instead of an IP header for packets destined to the VPN customer sites. This allows the penultimate hop router (the router before the egress PE router) to preserve the EXP bits of the MPLS label and pass them to the egress PE router. The egress PE router can then use these EXP bits to classify the traffic according to the CoS policy2. In this example, PE-1 should configure the explicit-null statement under [edit protocols mpls label-switched-path PE-1_to_PE-2] hierarchy level.

In OSPF, routers form adjacencies by exchanging Hello packets. These packets contain several parameters that must match between OSPF neighbors to establish a successful adjacency. Key among these parameters are the Hello Interval and the Dead Interval.

Let's analyze the exhibit and the question to determine the correct course of action to ensure that R4 peers with both R1 and R2.

1. **OSPF Hello and Dead Intervals**:

- **Hello Interval**: The time in seconds between Hello packets sent out by a router. Default is usually 10 seconds for broadcast and point-to-point networks.

- **Dead Interval**: The time in seconds that a router will wait to receive a Hello packet from a neighbor before declaring the neighbor down. Default is usually four times the Hello Interval (40 seconds).

2. **Analysis of the Exhibit**:

- **R1's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R2's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 40 seconds.

- **R4's Interface**: Shows a Dead Interval of 20 seconds.

From the exhibit, we can see that R4 has a Dead Interval of 20 seconds, while R1 and R2 have Dead Intervals of 40 seconds. This discrepancy prevents R4 from establishing an OSPF peering with R1.

3. **Option Analysis**:

- **A. Adjust the Priority on R1 to be lower than the Priority on R4**:

- Incorrect. The OSPF Priority is used for DR/BDR election on multi-access networks and does not impact peering issues.

- **B. Change the MTU size on R1 and R2 to be 22 bytes higher than R4's MTU size**:

- Incorrect. While MTU mismatches can prevent OSPF adjacencies, the exhibit does not indicate an MTU mismatch issue.

- **C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2**:

- Correct. Matching the Dead Interval on R4 to 40 seconds will ensure that all routers have consistent Hello and Dead Intervals, allowing OSPF adjacencies to form.

- **D. Adjust the Hello Interval on R1 and R2 to match the Hello Interval on R4**:

- While this would be a valid approach if the Hello Intervals were mismatched, the exhibit shows that the Hello Intervals are consistent (10 seconds) across all routers. Therefore, this adjustment is not necessary.

**Conclusion**:

To correct the OSPF peering issue, the Dead Interval on R4 should be adjusted to match the Dead Intervals on R1 and R2. The correct answer is:

**C. Adjust the Dead Interval on R4 to match the Dead Interval on R1 and R2.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on OSPF: [OSPF Overview](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

- OSPF Configuration Guide: [Configuring OSPF](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/ospf-configuring.html)

To allow Site 1 to access three VLANs that are located in Site 2 and Site 3, you need to configure three L2VPN routing instances on PE-1, one for each VLAN. Each L2VPN routing instance will have a different VLAN ID and a different VNI for VXLAN encapsulation. Each L2VPN routing instance will also have a different vrf-target export value to identify which VPN routes belong to which VLAN. This way, PE-1 can forward traffic from Site 1 to Site 2 and Site 3 based on the VLAN tags and VNIs.

The brackets [ ] in the AS path identify an AS set, which are groups of AS numbers in which the order does not matter. An AS set is used when BGP aggregates routes from different ASs into a single prefix. For example, if BGP aggregates routes 10.0.0.0/16 and 10.1.0.0/16 from AS 100 and AS 200, respectively, into a single prefix 10.0.0.0/15, then the AS path for this prefix will be [100 200]. An AS set reduces the length of the AS path and prevents routing loops.

AToM (Any Transport over MPLS) is a framework that supports various Layer 2 transport types over an MPLS network core. One of the transport types supported by AToM is LDP Layer 2 circuit, which is a point-to-point Layer 2 connection that uses LDP for signaling and MPLS for forwarding. LDP Layer 2 circuit can support Layer 2 connectivity without using BGP and can be scalable and efficient by using a single MPLS LSP for multiple VPN connections. The customer can maintain all routing for their private network by using their own CE switches.

IS-IS is an interior gateway protocol that uses link-state routing to exchange routing information among routers within a single autonomous system. IS-IS uses two types of addresses to identify routers and areas: system ID and area address. The system ID is a unique identifier for each router in an IS-IS domain. The system ID is 6 octets long and can be derived from the MAC address or manually configured. The area address is a variable-length identifier for each area in an IS-IS domain. The area address can be 1 to 13 octets long and is composed of high-order octets of the address. An IS-IS instance may be assigned multiple area addresses, which are considered synonymous. Multiple synonymous area addresses are useful when merging or splitting areas in the domain1. In this question, we have a network based on IS-IS with four routers (R1_1, R1_2, R2_1, and R2_2) belonging to area 0001. The area address for area 0001 is 49.0001. The NSEL byte for area 0001 is the last octet of the address, which is 01. The NSEL byte stands for Network Service Access Point Selector (NSAP Selector) and indicates the type of service requested from the network layer2. Therefore, the correct statement in this scenario is that the NSEL byte for area 0001 is 01.

References: 1: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_isis/configuration/xe-16/irs-xe-16-book/irs-ovrvw-cf.html  2: https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/is-is/topics/concept/is-is-routing-overview.html

The vrf-target export parameter is used to specify one or more BGP extended community attributes that are attached to VPN routes when they are exported from a VRF routing instance to remote PE routers. This parameter allows you to control which VPN routes are accepted by remote PE routers based on their import policies. You can specify more than one vrf-target export value for a VRF routing instance to support advanced route filtering or route leaking scenarios.

EVPN is a technology that connects L2 network segments separated by an L3 network using a virtual Layer 2 network overlay over the Layer 3 network. EVPN uses BGP as its control protocol to exchange different types of routes for different purposes. Type 2 routes are used to advertise MAC address and IP address pairs learned using ARP snooping from the local CE devices. Type 3 routes are used to join a multicast tree to flood traffic such as broadcast, unknown unicast, and multicast (BUM) traffic.

Junos platforms use different mechanisms to evaluate incoming traffic for CoS purposes, such as:

Behavior aggregate classifiers: These classifiers use a single field in a packet header to classify traffic into different forwarding classes and loss priorities based on predefined or user-defined values.

Fixed classifiers: These classifiers use a fixed field in a packet header to classify traffic into different forwarding classes and loss priorities based on predefined values.

Multifield classifiers: These classifiers use multiple fields in a packet header to classify traffic into different forwarding classes and loss priorities based on user-defined values and filters.

Rewrite rules and traffic shapers are not used to evaluate incoming traffic for CoS purposes, but rather to modify or shape outgoing traffic based on CoS policies.

VPLS is a technology that provides Layer 2 VPN services over an MPLS network. VPLS uses BGP as its control protocol to exchange VPN membership information between PE routers. The route target is a BGP extended community attribute that identifies which VPN a route belongs to. The route target must match on PE routers that participate in the same VPLS instance, otherwise they will not accept or advertise routes for that VPLS.

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/nce/feature-guide-virtual-private-lan-service/topics/task/vpls-ldp-signaling-solutions.html

https://www.juniper.net/documentation/us/en/software/junos/vpn-l2/topics/concept/vpns-configuring-vpls-routing-instances.html#id-11510150__id-11568648

amplification attacks are a type of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack that exploit the characteristics of certain protocols to amplify the traffic sent to a victim. For example, an attacker can send a small DNS query with a spoofed source IP address to a DNS server, which will reply with a much larger response to the victim. This way, the attacker can generate a large amount of traffic with minimal resources.

One of the methods to protect against amplification attacks is destination-based Remote Triggered Black Hole (RTBH) filtering. This technique allows a network operator to drop traffic destined to a specific IP address or prefix at the edge of the network, thus preventing it from reaching the victim and consuming bandwidth and resources. RTBH filtering can be implemented using BGP to propagate a special route with a next hop of 192.0.2.1 (a reserved address) to the edge routers. Any traffic matching this route will be discarded by the edge routers.

In the exhibit, the PE-to-CE protocol used is OSPF, and there is an OSPF neighborship between CE-1 and CE-2 within the same Area 0. Let's analyze the default OSPF routing behavior in this setup to determine the correct statement.

1. **OSPF Neighborship**:

- CE-1 and CE-2 have an OSPF neighborship directly within Area 0.

- OSPF prefers intra-area routes over inter-area and external routes.

2. **Default Routing Behavior**:

- Since CE-1 and CE-2 are directly connected through an OSPF link within the same area, OSPF will prefer this direct intra-area path over any other paths learned via the PE routers and the L3VPN.

- This is because intra-area routes have a lower metric compared to inter-area or external routes.

3. **Metric Considerations**:

- By default, OSPF will route traffic between Site-1 and Site-2 through the direct link between CE-1 and CE-2, unless the link's metric is artificially increased to make it less preferable.

- There is no need to adjust metrics for the CE-1 to PE-1 link to prefer the CE-1 to CE-2 path, as OSPF already prefers direct intra-area paths.

**Conclusion**:

Given the default behavior of OSPF and the topology shown in the exhibit, the correct statement is:

**B. Hosts at Site-1 will reach hosts at Site-2 through the CE-1 and CE-2 link by default.**

**References**:

- OSPF Design Guide: [Juniper Networks OSPF Design Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-design-overview.html)

- Juniper Networks Technical Documentation on OSPF: [Junos OS OSPF Configuration Guide](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/ospf-routing-overview.html)

In the provided exhibit, PE-1 and PE-2 are configured with LDP-signaled pseudowires to provide Layer 2 connectivity between CE-1 and CE-2. The issue is that there is no connectivity between CE-1 and CE-2. Let’s analyze the potential causes for this fault.

1. **LDP-Signaled Pseudowire (L2 Circuit) Configuration**:

- Pseudowires in MPLS networks use LDP (Label Distribution Protocol) to signal the virtual circuit (VC) labels between PE routers.

- For successful connectivity, the VC ID (Virtual Circuit Identifier) and LSPs (Label Switched Paths) between the PE routers must be correctly configured and operational.

2. **Analysis of the Exhibit**:

- The output shows the status of the L2 circuit connection on PE-1.

- The status (St) for the interface is `rmt Dn`, which indicates that the remote site (PE-2) is down or unreachable.

3. **Potential Causes**:

- **A. The VC IDs are mismatched**:

- Correct. If the VC IDs configured on PE-1 and PE-2 do not match, the L2 circuit cannot be established. Mismatched VC IDs prevent the pseudowire from forming correctly.

- **B. There is no LSP configured from PE-1 to PE-2**:

- Correct. LSPs are required for MPLS forwarding. If there is no LSP from PE-1 to PE-2, the LDP session cannot establish a path for the pseudowire. This results in the pseudowire being down.

- **C. Interface ge-0/0/0 on PE-1 is down**:

- Incorrect. The interface status is shown as `Up`, meaning the physical interface is operational.

- **D. There is no LSP configured from PE-2 to PE-1**:

- While this might seem like a potential issue, the specific problem of the remote site being down (`rmt Dn`) typically relates more directly to the forward path from PE-1 to PE-2 (i.e., no LSP from PE-1 to PE-2). Hence, the more accurate immediate cause is covered in Option B.

**Conclusion**:

Given the analysis, the correct statements describing potential causes for the fault are:

**A. The VC IDs are mismatched.**

**B. There is no LSP configured from PE-1 to PE-2.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on L2 Circuits: [Configuring Layer 2 Circuits](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/task/configuration/layer-2-circuits-configuring.html)

- MPLS Configuration Guide: [Juniper MPLS Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-overview.html)

In the exhibit, the output of the `show route protocol bgp` command is shown for the prefix `172.16.20.4/30`. Let's analyze the provided BGP routing table to determine which statements are correct.

1. **AS Path Analysis**:

- The AS path for the route `172.16.20.4/30` is shown as `2 I`.

- This indicates that the route was learned from AS 2 and it is an internal (iBGP) route within the same AS.

2. **Multiple Paths**:

- The route has two next-hop IP addresses: `10.0.18.2` via interface `ge-1/0/4.0` and `10.0.19.2` via interface `ge-1/0/5.0`.

- This indicates that BGP multipath is configured, which allows multiple equal-cost paths to be used for load balancing.

- BGP multipath must be explicitly configured to use multiple paths for the same prefix.

3. **Multihop vs. Multipath**:

- **Multihop Configuration**: This is typically used for establishing BGP sessions with peers that are not directly connected. It is not related to load balancing.

- **Multipath Configuration**: This is used to enable load balancing across multiple paths for the same prefix, which is the case here.

**Conclusion**:

Given the above analysis:

- **C. This route is learned from the same AS number**: Correct. The AS path `2 I` indicates the route was learned from the same AS number (AS 2).

- **D. The multipath configuration is used for load balancing**: Correct. The presence of multiple next-hops indicates that BGP multipath is configured for load balancing.

Thus, the correct answers are:

**C. This route is learned from the same AS number.**

**D. The multipath configuration is used for load balancing.**

**References**:

- Junos OS BGP Multipath Documentation: [Junos OS BGP Multipath](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/bgp-multipath.html)

- Junos OS BGP Configuration Guide: [Junos OS BGP Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/concept/bgp-routing-overview.html)

The problem in this scenario is that R1 and R8 are not receiving each other’s routes because of private AS numbers in the AS path. Private AS numbers are not globally unique and are not advertised to external BGP peers. To solve this problem, you need to do the following:

Configure loops on routers in AS 65412 and advertise-peer-as on routers in AS 64498. This allows R5 and R6 to advertise their own AS number (65412) instead of their peer’s AS number (64498) when sending updates to R7 and R8. This prevents a loop detection issue that would cause R7 and R8 to reject the routes from R5 and R62.

Configure remove-private on advertisements from AS 64497 toward AS 64498 and from AS 64500 toward AS 64499. This removes any private AS numbers from the AS path before sending updates to external BGP peers. This allows R2 and R3 to receive the routes from R1 and R4, respectively3.

BGP FlowSpec is a feature that extends the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) to enable routers to exchange traffic flow specifications, allowing for more precise control of network traffic. The BGP FlowSpec feature enables routers to advertise and receive information about specific flows in the network, such as those originating from a particular source or destined for a particular destination. Routers can then use this information to construct traffic filters that allow or deny packets of a certain type, rate limit flows, or perform other actions1. BGP FlowSpec can also help in filtering traffic and taking action against distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks by dropping the DDoS traffic or diverting it to an analyzer2. BGP FlowSpec rules are internally converted to equivalent Cisco Common Classification Policy Language (C3PL) representing corresponding match and action parameters2. Therefore, BGP FlowSpec uses dynamically created routing policies to protect a network from denial-of-service attacks.

References: 1: https://www.networkingsignal.com/what-is-bgp-flowspec/  2: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/iproute_bgp/configuration/xe-16/irg-xe-16-book/bgp-flowspec-route-reflector-support.html

The auto-export parameter is a routing option that allows a routing instance to share routes with other routing instances or the master routing table. The auto-export parameter automatically exports routes from one routing instance to another based on the route target communities attached to the routes. In this scenario, the 10.101.1.0/24 route will be shared if the auto-export parameter is configured under [edit routing-options] hierarchy level.

Interprovider Option C for Layer 3 VPNs involves the use of Autonomous System Boundary Routers (ASBRs) to exchange labeled VPN-IPv4 routes between different Autonomous Systems (AS). This option requires BGP sessions between ASBRs, and the VPN routes are carried end-to-end using MPLS labels. Here’s a detailed analysis of the roles of different routers in this scenario:

1. **ASBR Routers**:

- ASBRs are responsible for exchanging VPN-IPv4 routes between different ASes.

- **A. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback addresses from the other AS PEs.**

- Correct. ASBRs maintain routes to internal destinations within their own AS, and they also need to know the loopback addresses of PEs in the other AS to set up the BGP sessions and MPLS tunnels.

2. **PE Routers**:

- PE routers are responsible for maintaining VPN routes and label information to forward VPN traffic correctly.

- **B. PE routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

- Correct. PE routers need to maintain:

- Internal routes within their AS for routing.

- Loopback addresses of other AS PEs for establishing MPLS LSPs.

- L3VPN routes to provide end-to-end VPN connectivity.

3. **P Routers**:

- P routers are the core routers that do not participate in BGP VPN routing but forward labeled packets based on MPLS labels.

- **C. P routers only maintain the internal routes from their own AS.**

- Correct. P routers maintain the internal routing information to forward packets within the AS and use MPLS labels for forwarding VPN packets. They do not maintain VPN routes or routes from other ASes.

4. **Incorrect Statements**:

- **D. P routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback address from the other AS PEs.**

- Incorrect. P routers do not need to maintain the loopback addresses of other AS PEs. They only maintain internal routing and MPLS label information.

- **E. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

- Incorrect. ASBR routers do not maintain L3VPN routes. They exchange labeled VPN-IPv4 routes with other ASBRs and forward them to PE routers.

**Conclusion**:

The correct answers are:

**A. ASBR routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS and the loopback addresses from the other AS PEs.**

**B. PE routers maintain the internal routes from its own AS, the loopback address from the other AS PEs, and the L3VPN routes.**

**C. P routers only maintain the internal routes from their own AS.**

**References**:

- Juniper Networks Documentation on Interprovider VPNs: [Interprovider VPN Configuration](https://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos/topics/topic-map/mpls-vpn-interprovider.html)

- MPLS and VPN Architectures, CCIP Edition by Ivan Pepelnjak and Jim Guichard

According to 1 and 2, BGP Layer 2 VPNs use BGP to distribute endpoint provisioning information and set up pseudowires between PE devices. BGP uses the Layer 2 VPN (L2VPN) Routing Information Base (RIB) to store endpoint provisioning information, which is updated each time any Layer 2 virtual forwarding instance (VFI) is configured. The prefix and path information is stored in the L2VPN database, which allows BGP to make decisions about the best path.

In the output shown in the exhibit, we can see some information about the L2VPN RIB and the pseudowire state. Based on this information, we can infer the following statements:

The PE is attached to a single local site. This is correct because the output shows only one local site ID (1) under the L2VPN RIB section. A local site ID is a unique identifier for a site within a VPLS domain. If there were multiple local sites attached to the PE, we would see multiple local site IDs with different prefixes.

The connection has not flapped since it was initiated. This is correct because the output shows that the uptime of the pseudowire is equal to its total uptime (1w6d). This means that the pseudowire has been up for one week and six days without any interruption or flap.

There has been a VLAN ID mismatch. This is not correct because the output shows that the remote and local VLAN IDs are both 0 under the pseudowire state section. A VLAN ID mismatch occurs when the remote and local VLAN IDs are different, which can cause traffic loss or misdelivery. If there was a VLAN ID mismatch, we would see different values for the remote and local VLAN IDs.

The PE router has the capability to pop flow labels. This is correct because the output shows that the flow label pop bit is set under the pseudowire state section. The flow label pop bit indicates that the PE router can pop (remove) the MPLS flow label from the packet before forwarding it to the CE device. The flow label is an optional MPLS label that can be used for load balancing or traffic engineering purposes.

BGP policy framework is a set of tools that allows you to control the flow of routing information and apply routing policies based on various criteria. BGP policy framework consists of several components, such as route maps, prefix lists, community lists, AS path lists, and route filters. Route maps are used to define routing policies by matching certain conditions and applying certain actions. Prefix lists are used to filter routes based on their prefixes. Community lists are used to filter routes based on their community attributes. AS path lists are used to filter routes based on their AS path attributes. Route filters are used to filter routes based on their prefix length or range3. In this question, we have a route map named ISP-A that has two clauses: clause 10 and clause 20. Clause 10 matches any route with a prefix length between 8 and 24 bits and sets the local preference to 200. Clause 20 matches any route with a prefix of 224.7.7.7/32 and rejects it. The route map is applied inbound on the BGP neighborship with ISP-A. Based on this configuration, the correct statement is that joins for group 224.7.7.7 are always rejected, regardless of the group count. This is because clause 20 explicitly denies any route with a prefix of 224.7.7.7/32, which corresponds to the multicast group 224.7.7.7.

BGP add-path is a feature that allows the advertisement of multiple paths through the same peering session for the same prefix without the new paths implicitly replacing any previous paths. This behavior promotes path diversity and reduces multi-exit discriminator (MED) oscillations. BGP add-path is implemented by adding a path identifier to each path in the NLRI. The path identifier can be considered as something similar to a route distinguisher in VPNs, except that a path ID can apply to any address family. Path IDs are unique to a peering session and are generated for each network3. In this question, we have a route reflector (RR) that receives two routes for the same prefix (192.168.0.0/16) from an EBGP neighbor. By default, the RR will only advertise its best path to its clients (R1 and R2). However, we want R1 and R2 to receive both routes from the RR. To achieve this, we need to configure BGP add-path on the RR and enable it to send multiple paths for the same prefix to its clients.

TLVs are tuples of (Type, Length, Value) that can be advertised in IS-IS packets. TLVs can carry different kinds of information in the Link State Packets (LSPs). IS-IS supports both narrow and wide metrics for link costs. Narrow metrics use a single octet to encode the link cost, while wide metrics use three octets. Narrow metrics have a maximum value of 63, while wide metrics have a maximum value of 16777215. If there are both narrow and wide metric devices in the topology, IS-IS will advertise two TLVs for each link: one with the narrow metric and one with the wide metric. This allows backward compatibility with older devices that only support narrow metrics12.