To ensure POL_2 is evaluated after POL_1 for rewrite policies bound to a load-balancing vServer, which binding configuration is correct?

• 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. 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
• C. 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
• D. bind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 100 -gotoPriorityExpression END -type REQUEST bind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_2 -priority 110 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type REQUEST

Answer: (B)

In NetScaler rewrite policy bindings, the order in which policies are evaluated is driven by their binding priorities: the lower the number, the earlier the policy runs. The NEXT goto expression tells the system to continue evaluating the next bound policy, while END stops further evaluation after the current one.

To ensure POL_2 is evaluated after POL_1, POL_1 must run first and pass control to the next policy. POL_1 should have a lower priority value and use NEXT, while POL_2 should have a higher priority value and END so that it is evaluated next and then stops the chain.

The binding that achieves this uses POL_1 with a lower priority (for example, 90) and NEXT, and POL_2 with a higher priority (for example, 100) and END. This guarantees POL_1 is evaluated first, POL_2 is evaluated next, and no further policies are evaluated after POL_2.

Other configurations fail because POL_1 ends evaluation early (END) or POL_1 has a higher priority number than POL_2 (POL_2 would be evaluated first), preventing POL_2 from being evaluated after POL_1.