<?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 Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/519498#M107716</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello, good afternoon, thank you very much for your time, collaboration, time and suggestions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thinking in an environment where you have two routes to the same segment, example a pair of static routes through the Switch Core to LAN resources or two routes to the same destination, by two tunnels interfaces of a pair of VPN Site to Site to Azure.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;According to the above, if I indicate the same route, to the same destination, with the same metric, but different interfaces, Palo Alto will generate an error when placing a route, to the same destination with the same metric ? Demanding to adjust the metric values or asking to enable ECMP ? And if it does not generate an error, in this case, which route will be used if both have the same metric ? which one goes from the RIB to the FIB ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your support, collaboration and time.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I remain attentive to your comments.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2022 06:25:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Metgatz</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-10-28T06:25:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/519498#M107716</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello, good afternoon, thank you very much for your time, collaboration, time and suggestions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thinking in an environment where you have two routes to the same segment, example a pair of static routes through the Switch Core to LAN resources or two routes to the same destination, by two tunnels interfaces of a pair of VPN Site to Site to Azure.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;According to the above, if I indicate the same route, to the same destination, with the same metric, but different interfaces, Palo Alto will generate an error when placing a route, to the same destination with the same metric ? Demanding to adjust the metric values or asking to enable ECMP ? And if it does not generate an error, in this case, which route will be used if both have the same metric ? which one goes from the RIB to the FIB ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your support, collaboration and time.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I remain attentive to your comments.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2022 06:25:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/519498#M107716</guid>
      <dc:creator>Metgatz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-28T06:25:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/519737#M107754</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would recommend to use either Policy Based Forwarding for one of the routes with the static route being the method of last resort. Or you can weigh one of the routes. I have seen a lot of routing errors and connection failures due to asymmetric routing. I have been using OSPF for a long time and always add metrics to one of the paths. This way I know how the traffic is routed at all times and if there is monitoring, ie Solarwinds, I know which link went down based on the IP's I give the ends of the short hops, etc.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 19:40:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/519737#M107754</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-31T19:40:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Two Static Route - same destination, Same metric</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/520066#M107803</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please check out my reply to this post to see if it helps.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multi-site-dual-isp-with-redundant-vpn-connections-pbf-vs/m-p/205258#M60288" target="_blank"&gt;https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/multi-site-dual-isp-with-redundant-vpn-connections-pbf-vs/m-p/205258#M60288&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2022 20:42:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/two-static-route-same-destination-same-metric/m-p/520066#M107803</guid>
      <dc:creator>OtakarKlier</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-11-02T20:42:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

