<?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: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule? in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15147#M11119</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess this shows the level of interest in v6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've played around with it a bit more and it appears you &lt;STRONG&gt;can &lt;/STRONG&gt;mix v4 and v6 address in a security rule but not if you are doing negative matching in which case the v4 address gets ignored.&amp;nbsp; Is this a bug, known behaviour, anyone?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:59:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>LCMember2860</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-03-09T11:59:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15146#M11118</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;is there an issue with doing this - I have a rule set to match any address &lt;STRONG&gt;except &lt;/STRONG&gt;one particular IPv4 subnet (ie using the &lt;EM&gt;negate &lt;/EM&gt;function) - works fine.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I added an IPv6 prefix to the rule (still negated) - now the rule negatively matches the v6 address, but no longer the v4 address.&amp;nbsp; Remove the v6 address from the rule and the v4 address negatively matches again.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm therefore assuming I have to keep v4 and v6 rules separate, but I can't find this documented anywhere....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PAN-OS 4.1.3&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Liam.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:33:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15146#M11118</guid>
      <dc:creator>LCMember2860</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-06T11:33:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15147#M11119</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess this shows the level of interest in v6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've played around with it a bit more and it appears you &lt;STRONG&gt;can &lt;/STRONG&gt;mix v4 and v6 address in a security rule but not if you are doing negative matching in which case the v4 address gets ignored.&amp;nbsp; Is this a bug, known behaviour, anyone?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:59:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15147#M11119</guid>
      <dc:creator>LCMember2860</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-09T11:59:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15148#M11120</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sounds like you should file this as a bug through your sales rep.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think its still somewhat uncommon with IPv6 and those who did the switch use IPv6 instead of IPv4 (no dualstacking) so they wont stumble into the bug you just found.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are also methods to use 4to6 and 6to4 if you use devices such as BIG-IP from F5 (among others) so this will also avoid dualstacking on the servers (with 4to6/6to4 your servers can still be IPv4 native and the loadbalancer will take care of the transition).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:28:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15148#M11120</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-09T23:28:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15149#M11121</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please open a Support case so that we can file a bug. This is not an expected behavior.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:20:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15149#M11121</guid>
      <dc:creator>zarina</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-06T22:20:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15150#M11122</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi ,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a known issue and our team is actively working on the fix for this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sandeep T&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:15:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/15150#M11122</guid>
      <dc:creator>sdurga</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-09-06T23:15:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IPv6 and IPv4 addresses in same security rule?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/471990#M103166</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good Day,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please can you let me know if this has been resolved in PANOS 9.1.11-h3?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Lance&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 14:33:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ipv6-and-ipv4-addresses-in-same-security-rule/m-p/471990#M103166</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lance</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T14:33:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

