<?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: PA3250 in No Rules/Allow All mode and Public IPs in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482191#M104255</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the post&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/217299"&gt;@jpierce&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to answer your question for policies, the answer is no. For OSPF as well as BGP traffic, it should hit "intrazone-default" policy with the exception of BGP peer that is using update source address assigned to different zone, then this traffic might get blocked.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the issue with lost routes without further details, it is hard to give any advice, however as a next step, I would check whether your routing protocol adjacency/neighbor neighborship is established, check routing/forwarding table and system log.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kind Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Pavel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:16:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PavelK</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-04-24T22:16:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PA3250 in No Rules/Allow All mode and Public IPs</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482155#M104249</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are currently testing out/learning with a new 3250 in no rules / allow all traffic mode flowing from ISP &amp;gt; Palo &amp;gt; Cisco ASA (Being Retired).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have two public ips routed to two local static IPs and those have stopped working. Would a policy need to be created so the Palo does the routing and not the Cisco.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Apr 2022 18:04:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482155#M104249</guid>
      <dc:creator>jpierce</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-23T18:04:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PA3250 in No Rules/Allow All mode and Public IPs</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482191#M104255</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the post&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/217299"&gt;@jpierce&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;to answer your question for policies, the answer is no. For OSPF as well as BGP traffic, it should hit "intrazone-default" policy with the exception of BGP peer that is using update source address assigned to different zone, then this traffic might get blocked.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regarding the issue with lost routes without further details, it is hard to give any advice, however as a next step, I would check whether your routing protocol adjacency/neighbor neighborship is established, check routing/forwarding table and system log.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kind Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Pavel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 24 Apr 2022 22:16:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482191#M104255</guid>
      <dc:creator>PavelK</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-24T22:16:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PA3250 in No Rules/Allow All mode and Public IPs</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482332#M104276</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It sounds like you are attempting to put the Palo Alto inline in a 'virtual wire' mode. This way you can see all the traffic and possibly apply policies to this. Let us know how you plan to perform a stepped approach and we can provide guidance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The way I usually do this is configure the PAN with all the layer 3/4 policies in the ASA and swap them out during a maintenance window. Then put in the layer 7 policies above the layer 3/4 ones and ones the 3/4 ones no longer get any hits, I disable them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:57:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/pa3250-in-no-rules-allow-all-mode-and-public-ips/m-p/482332#M104276</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-04-25T14:57:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

