About the Exam

An NRS II composite multiple-choice exam that combines the content of Nokia IS-IS Routing Protocol, Border Gateway Protocol Fundamentals for Services, Multiprotocol Label Switching, and Services Architecture into one test. It is intended for candidates pursuing Nokia Network Routing Specialist II certification. Passing it earns credit toward the NRS II certification.

Exam Topics

  • IS-IS Routing Protocol25%
  • Border Gateway Protocol Fundamentals for Services25%
  • Multiprotocol Label Switching25%
  • Services Architecture25%

How to Use This Practice Exam

  1. Browse — Read each question, select your answer, and reveal the explanation.
  2. Exam Mode — Simulate real exam conditions with a timed session and score report.
  3. Learn Mode — Spaced repetition schedules questions you struggle with for long-term retention.

Download the Full Exam PDF

Get every question and answer in a clean, printable PDF built for offline study. Purchase once, keep permanent access, and re-download the latest version anytime.

Last updated May 6, 2026 at 5:05 AM

Topic filter
Retired questions
Question sort
Questions per page

QuestionQ1

Multiprotocol Label Switching

Which of the following statements regarding an ERO in an RSVP PATH message is FALSE?

Explanation

An ERO carries explicit-route subobjects that specify the path, not MPLS label bindings. Label bindings are conveyed using the LABEL object in the RSVP RESV message after a LABEL_REQUEST in the PATH message.

Learn more

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ2

Multiprotocol Label Switching

An LSP on a Nokia 7750 SR is configured for one-to-one FRR with node protection. Which statement is FALSE?

Explanation

One-to-one FRR uses a separate RSVP-TE detour tunnel for each individual primary LSP. A protection tunnel shared by multiple LSPs is a facility-mode bypass tunnel, not a one-to-one detour.

Learn more

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ3

Border Gateway Protocol Fundamentals for Services

Which statement below about route reflectors is FALSE?

Explanation

A route-reflector client is an iBGP router. eBGP neighbors can advertise routes to a route reflector, but they are not route-reflector clients; therefore, a route reflector cannot have eBGP clients. Route reflection relaxes the usual iBGP advertisement restriction for client relationships and reduces the need for a full mesh of iBGP sessions within an AS.

Learn more

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ4

Services Architecture

A service must accept frames with either of the following tag combinations:

  • an outer VLAN tag of 200 and an inner VLAN tag of 33
  • an outer VLAN tag of 250 and an inner VLAN tag of 33

Which SAP(s) must be configured?

Explanation

On SR OS, a dot1q/QinQ SAP is defined as port:qtag1.qtag2, where a wildcard is permitted for the inner qtag when the outer qtag is explicit, but the outer qtag cannot be wildcarded while the inner tag stays explicit, and a single SAP definition cannot enumerate multiple discrete outer-tag values as alternatives. To accept only frames with outer VLAN 200 combined with inner VLAN 33, and separately outer VLAN 250 combined with inner VLAN 33, two SAPs must be configured — one per outer/inner tag pair — since no single wildcarded SAP expression matches exactly those two combinations without also matching unwanted traffic or missing one of the required outer tags.

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

QuestionQ5

Border Gateway Protocol Fundamentals for Services

In a traditional (non-EVPN) VPRN service, which of the following statements about a Route Target (RT) is FALSE?

Explanation

A Route Target is a BGP extended community that identifies VPN membership and controls which VPRN/VRF instances import or export a VPN route. Different RT values control route distribution; they do not themselves make overlapping private IP prefixes usable. Prefix overlap is supported by separate VPN/VRF routing contexts and route distinguishers that make otherwise identical VPN route prefixes unique.

Learn more

Community Discussion

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Know a question that should be here? Contribute to this exam
Back home