Scenario: POLICY1: add rewrite action ACT_1 corrupt_http_header Accept-Encoding add rewrite policy POL_1 HTTP.REQ.IS_VALID ACT_1 POLICY2: add rewrite action ACT_2 insert_http_header Accept-Encoding…

Question

Options

• Abind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -gotoPriorityExpression END -type
• Bbind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 110 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type
• Cbind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -type REQUEST
• Dbind lb vServer lb_vsrv -policyName POL_1 -priority 90 -gotoPriorityExpression NEXT -type

• A
  9% (4)
• B
  4% (2)
• C
  15% (7)
• D
  72% (34)

Explanation

Option D is correct because it sets gotoPriorityExpression NEXT with priority 90, which causes the system to continue evaluating subsequent policies after POL_1 matches - allowing POL_2 (bound at a higher priority number, e.g., 100 or 110) to be evaluated next. In Citrix ADC, lower priority numbers are evaluated first, and NEXT explicitly tells the engine not to stop after the current policy.

Option A fails because gotoPriorityExpression END halts policy evaluation immediately after POL_1 matches, so POL_2 is never reached - the exact opposite of what's required. Option B is wrong on two counts: a priority of 110 may place POL_1 after POL_2 in the evaluation chain (if POL_2 is bound at a lower number), and the -type parameter is incomplete without a bind-point like REQUEST. Option C omits gotoPriorityExpression NEXT entirely; without it, the default behavior terminates evaluation at POL_1, preventing POL_2 from running.

Memory tip: Think of the evaluation chain like a queue - NEXT means "keep going down the line," END means "stop here." Always pair a lower priority number (runs first) with NEXT when you need a policy chain to flow in order.

No community discussion yet for this question.