<?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: Cisco Ironport with Palo Alto FW in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-ironport-with-palo-alto-fw/m-p/16193#M11831</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well that Ironport device (even if they are best known for mailfiltering) should be just like any SPI/NGFW around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is in your case I would create a dedicated zone and attach that to a dedicated interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This interface would then have a linknet created (for example 10.0.0.1/30 or whatever RFC1918 addressrange you prefer) and then in the VROUTER setup a static nexthop for the range which the tenant will use out of your range.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Internet &amp;lt;-&amp;gt; PA &amp;lt;-&amp;gt; Ironport&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;where the link between PA and Ironport have 10.0.0.1/30 on your end and 10.0.0.2/30 on the Ironport end (as an example).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In your PA VROUTER you setup x.x.x.x/xx NEXTHOP 10.0.0.2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The Ironport will then setup a default route towards 10.0.0.1 as nexthop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are of course other options around demending on your taste &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 17:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-12-01T17:38:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cisco Ironport with Palo Alto FW</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-ironport-with-palo-alto-fw/m-p/16192#M11830</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a tenant who is going to terminate their internet service and begin to use our connection.&amp;nbsp; Their internet traffic will be directed to our Palo Alto, which is our internet gateway.&amp;nbsp; The tenant also uses a Cisco Ironport Web Security device and insists on its continued use vs. using the services on the Palo Alto.&amp;nbsp; My thought was to put the Ironport on our DMZ and via PBF, send all traffic from the tenant subnet to the Ironport.&amp;nbsp; The Ironport would then return the filtered traffic to the PA and out to the internet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone familiar with the Ironport/ have any ideas of whether or not this setup is feasible?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2013 18:50:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-ironport-with-palo-alto-fw/m-p/16192#M11830</guid>
      <dc:creator>jeffrey.schultise</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-11-06T18:50:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco Ironport with Palo Alto FW</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-ironport-with-palo-alto-fw/m-p/16193#M11831</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well that Ironport device (even if they are best known for mailfiltering) should be just like any SPI/NGFW around.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is in your case I would create a dedicated zone and attach that to a dedicated interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This interface would then have a linknet created (for example 10.0.0.1/30 or whatever RFC1918 addressrange you prefer) and then in the VROUTER setup a static nexthop for the range which the tenant will use out of your range.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Internet &amp;lt;-&amp;gt; PA &amp;lt;-&amp;gt; Ironport&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;where the link between PA and Ironport have 10.0.0.1/30 on your end and 10.0.0.2/30 on the Ironport end (as an example).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In your PA VROUTER you setup x.x.x.x/xx NEXTHOP 10.0.0.2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The Ironport will then setup a default route towards 10.0.0.1 as nexthop.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are of course other options around demending on your taste &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 01 Dec 2013 17:38:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/cisco-ironport-with-palo-alto-fw/m-p/16193#M11831</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-01T17:38:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

