<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Problem With Panorama Pushed Update 10.1.5 in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479304#M103884</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Have you looked at the configuration and ensure that the address object was actually carried over in the configuration migration without issue? &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;It is like for like.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;That object could have not been carried over in the configuration migration.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;All objects were carried over and show in the UI.&amp;nbsp; Its weird because I've&amp;nbsp;had to replace or clone service/address/groups/objects and remove the original&amp;nbsp;object and replace that in the various sec and nat policies then try to push it. I get a failure on the local firewall for objects that have already existed in previous code but are now unacceptable&amp;nbsp;references and must be changed and when I clone the object whatever it is remove the old object add the new one to the old policies and push the firewall moves on to the next object. This is beyond tedious at this point.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:23:53 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BartChamness</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-04-08T13:23:53Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Problem With Panorama Pushed Update 10.1.5</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479091#M103858</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="BartChamness_1-1649360375352.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/40088i1B120EBB6C676793/image-size/medium/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="BartChamness_1-1649360375352.png" alt="BartChamness_1-1649360375352.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since when is 'citrix-f5' not an allowed keyword.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 19:40:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479091#M103858</guid>
      <dc:creator>BartChamness</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-07T19:40:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem With Panorama Pushed Update 10.1.5</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479171#M103871</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/105800"&gt;@BartChamness&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have you looked at the configuration and ensure that the address object was actually carried over in the configuration migration without issue? That object could have not been carried over in the configuration migration.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2022 23:29:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479171#M103871</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-07T23:29:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem With Panorama Pushed Update 10.1.5</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479304#M103884</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Have you looked at the configuration and ensure that the address object was actually carried over in the configuration migration without issue? &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;It is like for like.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;That object could have not been carried over in the configuration migration.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;All objects were carried over and show in the UI.&amp;nbsp; Its weird because I've&amp;nbsp;had to replace or clone service/address/groups/objects and remove the original&amp;nbsp;object and replace that in the various sec and nat policies then try to push it. I get a failure on the local firewall for objects that have already existed in previous code but are now unacceptable&amp;nbsp;references and must be changed and when I clone the object whatever it is remove the old object add the new one to the old policies and push the firewall moves on to the next object. This is beyond tedious at this point.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 13:23:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/problem-with-panorama-pushed-update-10-1-5/m-p/479304#M103884</guid>
      <dc:creator>BartChamness</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-08T13:23:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

