To ensure that POL_2 is evaluated after POL_1 when binding rewrite policies to a LB vServer, which binding configuration is correct?

• A. A: bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 110 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST; bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_2 -priority 100 -gotoPriorityExpression END -type REQUEST
• B. B: bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -gotoPriorityExpression END -type REQUEST; bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_2 -priority 100 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST
• C. C: bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST; bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_2 -priority 80 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST
• D. D: bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST; bind lb vserver lb_vsrv -policyName POL_2 -priority 100 -gotoPriorityExpression END -type REQUEST

Answer: (D)

The binding order is driven by priority values and the goto behavior that follows each policy. Policies bound to a vServer are evaluated in ascending order of their priority numbers (lower numbers run first). The gotoPriorityExpression determines whether the evaluation continues to the next bound policy (NEXT) or stops after the current one (END).

To have POL_2 evaluated after POL_1, POL_1 must be bound with a higher priority (i.e., a smaller number) than POL_2, and POL_1 should use NEXT to proceed to the next policy. Then POL_2 should use END so that after POL_2 is evaluated, evaluation stops. In the correct configuration, POL_1 has a priority of 90 with NEXT, and POL_2 has a priority of 100 with END. This makes POL_1 run first, move to POL_2, and then stop after POL_2 is evaluated. If POL_1 used END, or if POL_2 had a smaller priority value than POL_1, POL_2 would not be evaluated after POL_1, which is why the other options don’t fit.