Free Juniper JN0-460 Actual Exam Questions

A, because SSL is outdated and RadSec explicitly uses TLS over TCP for security.

A/B? I’m sure UDP is out since RadSec’s main point is reliability via TCP. The difference between TLS and SSL here is tricky because SSL is the older term, but RadSec specs specifically mention TLS, not SSL. So A seems better than B just because of the protocol naming. Also, TLS has replaced SSL in practically every modern secure setup, so they probably want the up-to-date term.

B and C, since claiming activates but doesn’t guarantee connection yet.

B/D? If the switch just got claimed, it might not be fully activated or connected yet, so inactive and unassigned could both apply while it’s still setting up.

A/B? I’m also discarding C and D quickly since Mist UI isn’t about client connection or VM provisioning. Between A and B, it’s tricky because Mist UI does help manage network devices, but I’m not sure it handles route distribution directly. That part seems more like a backend or routing protocol function rather than a UI feature. So I’d still lean toward A as the safest bet since managing devices fits the UI role better than distributing routes.

Maybe D, but only if you consider cloud providers managing virtual environments where Mist UI could be part of broader management tools. However, that seems less likely since Mist mainly focuses on network-related tasks, not VM provisioning. B and C don’t line up well either—B is more about routing protocols, which Mist UI doesn’t handle, and C is definitely on the client side, not the UI’s job. A looks solid from a network management perspective, but if the question is about cloud resource provisioning specifically, then D might be worth considering.

B imo. Site configurations usually need to reflect physical or geographical groupings, which fits the location level better than the broader organization or the specific client/device levels. Organization’s too broad and clients are too narrow, so location strikes the right balance for applying site-specific settings.

D. Creating site configurations at the organization level makes sense if you want a consistent setup across all locations, not just a single site. It’s broader and covers everything under one roof.

A, C, and E make sense since they cover port reset, connectivity, and physical cable.

Probably A, C, and E. Bounce port (A) actively tests the port by resetting it, cable test (E) checks the physical link, and ping (C) verifies connectivity. B and D don’t really fit since load factory-default just resets settings and iPerf is more for throughput testing, usually external. So those three seem like the real switch testing tools in Wired Assurance.

C seems too generic and misses the 5-stage detail, so D fits better here.

D. The key here is the 5-stage Clos, which means more spine layers beyond the usual 3-stage setup. That extra hierarchy is exactly what D describes, making it the best fit.

C imo. Site-level policies usually override org-level ones since they’re more specific, so the site policy should execute first here despite the org template mentioning Site A.

B imo. Org-level templates are generally designed to be applied to site groups, not individual sites. So mentioning a single site in the template doesn’t really fit the usual workflow. This makes B a cleaner choice because it aligns with how these templates are structured and deployed. D seems tempting but feels more like a limitation rather than a feature statement. C and A don’t make as much sense given this context since the question is about applying templates, not the order of policy execution.

Maybe B and D. I’m skipping A because even if it feels like “no config,” usually there’s some baseline setup or enablement in Mist’s system before it kicks in. B and D both talk about captures being tied directly to events or affected items, which fits with how Mist highlights issues automatically for troubleshooting. C sounds off since I doubt it needs global org-level config just for this feature. So probably the auto-association parts in B and D are the key here.

I’m thinking A and D make sense here. A because I read that Mist’s Dynamic Packet Capture doesn’t need upfront config to start working, which fits the “no configuration” claim. D also stands out since captures get linked to affected items automatically after successful client connections. B sounds close but not sure it’s every client event on the Insights page that triggers it. C seems off since global config isn’t required for the feature to run.

Probably A, B, and C since Observer and Helpdesk don’t handle device claims.

I agree with ruling out D and E quickly; B, A, and C seem to cover the claiming roles well.

B/C/D? The QR claim code (B) is definitely a direct way to onboard a device, and bulk claiming from a sale order (C) makes sense for a new deployment. The API option (D) also fits for automating onboarding in greenfield setups. The serial number (A) and MAC address (E) identify devices but don’t actually onboard them by themselves. So focusing on claiming and automation steps seems right here.

Option B, C, and D make most sense here. The QR claim code (B) is a direct way to onboard a switch, bulk claiming (C) fits well for multiple devices at a new site, and the API (D) helps automate the whole process. Serial number (A) and MAC address (E) are more about identifying devices but don’t actually onboard them by themselves. So I’d drop A and E since they lack the full onboarding capability needed.

Probably A and D here too. B’s off because SSH isn’t on 443, and C doesn’t fit since APs aren’t needed for switch adoption.

Maybe A and D. B’s off because SSH isn’t normally on 443, and C seems unrelated since switches don’t need Mist APs for adoption.

B/D? I’m guessing it’s either the AP or the switch since those handle VLANs directly, but APs sometimes miss VLAN tags which can cause this too. Not sure if it points to one more than the other here.

Option D, switches are usually responsible for VLAN configs, not clients or gateways.

C/D? It can’t be full access (D) since that’s usually reserved for admins, but read-only (C) makes sense if the role is about checking installs without making changes. Pretty sure they don’t actually do installs themselves.

I get why B and C are in the mix, but I’m wondering if the role really focuses on installing across all sites or if it’s more site-specific. If it’s post-install, maybe they’re more about verifying or monitoring after installation rather than deploying everywhere. That would lean away from B’s broad install access. Also, if they can’t change configurations, that leans toward C’s read-only angle. Could the exhibit clarify if the role includes any write permissions or just observation? Without that, it’s tricky to rule either out fully.

A. REST feels right since Juniper Mist focuses on simplicity and scalability, which REST APIs deliver well. SOAP is older and more complex, so less likely for a modern cloud-driven platform like Mist. JSON-RPC is more niche and not as widely adopted in enterprise cloud solutions. XML is mostly outdated for API payloads now, especially in newer platforms. So, the straightforward REST option fits best here based on what I’ve seen from similar cloud network services.

Probably A. REST is pretty much the go-to for modern cloud platforms like Juniper Mist, so it fits better than SOAP or XML-based options here.

I’m going with B and C because you can’t really create a site without knowing where it physically is, so

It’s B and D for me. You definitely need the site name to identify it, and the time zone is pretty crucial for scheduling and logs to work correctly. Location feels more like extra info you add later. RF template seems optional, especially if you’re not dealing with wireless right away.