Which binding sequence properly attaches POL_1 and POL_2 with NEXT and END semantics to a vServer?

• A. A 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
• B. B 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 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 0 -gotoPriorityExpression END -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 sequence is testing how policy flow is controlled on a vServer using NEXT and END. The load balancer evaluates bound policies in order of increasing priority (lower numbers first). After a policy runs, its gotoPriorityExpression tells whether to continue to the next bound policy (NEXT) or stop evaluating further policies (END).

To have POL_1 run first and then POL_2, POL_1 must use NEXT so control moves to the next bound policy, and POL_2 must use END to stop after the last policy. The priorities must reflect the desired order: POL_1 with a lower number than POL_2. In the correct setup, POL_1 has priority 90 with NEXT, and POL_2 has priority 100 with END. This means POL_1 executes first, then POL_2, and once POL_2 finishes, no further policies are evaluated.

The other options fail because they disrupt the intended flow: ending after POL_1 would prevent POL_2 from running; using NEXT on POL_2 could permit additional policies to run if present; and having an unexpected priority order could cause POL_2 to execute before POL_1, reversing the sequence.