An operator configured a new content switch rule for HTTP Virtual Service and wants to check the logs on the Virtual Service level to verify that the rule was executed as expected. However, the…

Question

Options

• AEnable non-significant logs on the Service Engine where Virtual Service is placed.
• BEnable log headers option on the Virtual Service level.
• CEnable non-significant logs on the Virtual Service level.
• DNo action will work because if the logs are not visible, it means there are no requests from the

• A
  9% (3)
• B
  3% (1)
• C
  17% (6)
• D
  71% (25)

Explanation

Option D is correct because content switch rule execution is treated as a significant log event on the Virtual Service - it is captured automatically when it occurs. If the logs are absent, the only valid conclusion is that no client requests actually reached the Virtual Service; the logging infrastructure doesn't need to be adjusted, the traffic simply isn't there.

Why the distractors fail:

• A is wrong because Service Engine-level non-significant logs are a different scope entirely and don't surface missing VS-level connection logs.
• B is wrong because enabling log headers only enriches existing log entries with HTTP header data - it doesn't make rule-execution logs appear that were never generated.
• C is wrong because non-significant logs capture uneventful requests (those that don't trigger anything notable). A content switch rule match is a significant event and would already be logged without this setting - enabling it wouldn't reveal the missing entries.

Memory tip: Think "significant event = automatic log." A content switch rule firing is inherently significant, so Avi/the platform logs it without extra configuration. If you see no log, there was no traffic - not a settings gap. The exam tries to trick you into choosing C (non-significant logs), but that's the wrong category for rule-match events.

No community discussion yet for this question.