<?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 Secondary interface on same subnet creates overlapping subnet commit failure in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508655#M105906</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello all, I currently have a case open with support on this issue. But I am looking for some customer feedback.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We presently have *two routes* and two separate firewalls. 10.0.44.1/22 on my Palo Alto, and 10.0.45.1/22 on a legacy Cisco L3 router. The Cisco has been stripped down and only really serves as a default route to a end of life firewall. My goal is to lift 10.0.45.1/22 from the old Cisco router and place it on my Palo Alto. In so many words ... I want to create a "secondary" IP address on the same subnet so that 10.0.45.1 and 10.0.44.1 are used interchangeably.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If I try to add these two addresses on the same one interface, the Palo rejects the changes with overlapping subnets. Support had suggested using a separate physical interface. But that gave me the same error message.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;EDIT: This is on a Palo Alto PA-3250&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Most of the articles and posts I have looked at for this issue point to a customer VPN where two remote sites have the same subnet(s). That doesn't really apply to my case here, and the solutions don't really make sense for this scenario.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Any help or pointers would be appreciated!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:40:41 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>SteveBallantyne</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-07-13T14:40:41Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Secondary interface on same subnet creates overlapping subnet commit failure</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508655#M105906</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello all, I currently have a case open with support on this issue. But I am looking for some customer feedback.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We presently have *two routes* and two separate firewalls. 10.0.44.1/22 on my Palo Alto, and 10.0.45.1/22 on a legacy Cisco L3 router. The Cisco has been stripped down and only really serves as a default route to a end of life firewall. My goal is to lift 10.0.45.1/22 from the old Cisco router and place it on my Palo Alto. In so many words ... I want to create a "secondary" IP address on the same subnet so that 10.0.45.1 and 10.0.44.1 are used interchangeably.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If I try to add these two addresses on the same one interface, the Palo rejects the changes with overlapping subnets. Support had suggested using a separate physical interface. But that gave me the same error message.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;EDIT: This is on a Palo Alto PA-3250&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Most of the articles and posts I have looked at for this issue point to a customer VPN where two remote sites have the same subnet(s). That doesn't really apply to my case here, and the solutions don't really make sense for this scenario.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Any help or pointers would be appreciated!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:40:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508655#M105906</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveBallantyne</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-07-13T14:40:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Secondary interface on same subnet creates overlapping subnet commit failure</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508683#M105913</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I dont think the PAN can do this? I would recommend repointing the devices to the correct gateway. If they are on DHCP, you should just be able to change the scope details and wait.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2022 19:23:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508683#M105913</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-07-13T19:23:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Secondary interface on same subnet creates overlapping subnet commit failure</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508967#M105932</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The problem with this is that I have a couple hundred devices with static IP addresses. Everything from printers, to interface boxes stuck to lab instruments, to managed switches, etc.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:33:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/secondary-interface-on-same-subnet-creates-overlapping-subnet/m-p/508967#M105932</guid>
      <dc:creator>SteveBallantyne</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-07-14T15:33:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

