Question 1
Refer to the exhibit.

Referring to the exhibit, you are configuring a Junos router to provide connectivity to a building across town on the network 10.10.10.0/24. The next-hop router is at 10.10.1.1, which is reachable using interface ge-0/0/1. After committing the configuration in the exhibit, users report they still cannot reach the 10.10.10.0/24 network, and the route does not appear as active in the routing table. In this scenario, which statement is correct?
In Junos OS, the Routing Engine (RE) performs a validation check on every entry in the Routing Information Base (RIB). For a static route to be considered valid and transition to an active state in the inet.0 table, its designated next hop must be resolvable. A next-hop address is resolvable only if the router has an existing route (typically a directly connected route) to that specific IP address.
According to the exhibit, the static route for 10.10.10.0/24 has been configured with a next hop of 10.1.1.1. However, the scenario states that the actual gateway router is located at 10.10.1.1. If the local interface (ge-0/0/1) is configured with an IP in the 10.10.1.0/x subnet, the router will have a direct route to 10.10.1.1, but it will likely have no path to the 10.1.1.1 address provided in the exhibit.
Because the router cannot resolve the next hop 10.1.1.1, the static route is placed in an 'inactive' or 'hidden' state. It will not be installed in the forwarding table pushed to the Packet Forwarding Engine (PFE), and standard show route commands will not display it unless specific flags like hidden or all are used. This logic ensures that the router does not attempt to forward packets into a 'black hole' where the gateway is logically unreachable. To fix this, the administrator must modify the configuration to point to the correct, reachable next-hop address of 10.10.1.1.

