Which two statements are true about routing instances on Junos devices?

The virtual-router routing-instance type in Junos is a general-purpose instance type intended for creating isolated, independent routing and forwarding contexts within a single physical device for applications that have nothing to do with MPLS-based VPN services — common use cases include multi-tenant network segmentation, filter-based forwarding deployments, and simple traffic isolation between departments or customers on a shared switch or router, all of which are non-VPN-related applications by nature. Layer 2 and Layer 3 VPN services, by contrast, rely on a different, dedicated routing-instance type specifically named vrf, which integrates with MPLS/BGP-based VPN signaling, route distinguishers, route targets, and PE-CE routing exchange; virtual-router instances do not participate in that VPN signaling framework at all, which is why the statement associating virtual-router with VPN use is incorrect. Whenever an administrator creates any user-configured routing instance — regardless of its specific type — Junos automatically allocates and generates a brand-new, dedicated routing table for that instance, named according to the pattern instance-name.inet.0 (or the appropriate address-family suffix), which is entirely separate from and independent of the default master inet.0 table used by the global/default routing context. Because each new routing instance receives its own distinct table rather than sharing or defaulting into the master inet.0 table, the statement claiming instances automatically fall back to using inet.0 unless configured otherwise is factually incorrect; instances are isolated by design from the outset. Reference topics: Junos Enterprise Routing – Protocol Independent Routing, Routing Instance Types and Table Allocation.