<?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: Policy complexity considerations in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/policy-complexity-considerations/m-p/17733#M12920</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Euh - you have 15 security policies on a 2050 and you are worrying about performance impact ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Funny &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I wouldn't worry too much about performance , even with 1000+ policies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe managability and visibilty becomes an issue then , allthough by using (multiple) tags , you can even keep a +1000 policy understandable....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:34:04 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Bart_Jocque</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-11-25T17:34:04Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Policy complexity considerations</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/policy-complexity-considerations/m-p/17732#M12919</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;When creating policies, especially Security and QoS, how much consideration do I have to give to the number of policies?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If we want to get very granular with these policies, will we pay any significant penalty in performance (either in device administration or performance)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(Specifically we have PA2050 that will route through 220Mbps max to internet--I have about 15 Security and about 10 QoS rules, would like to add more)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it better to group objects and minimize policy complexity, or (from a performance perspective) do I even need to worry about it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Simon.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:15:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/policy-complexity-considerations/m-p/17732#M12919</guid>
      <dc:creator>sspivey</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-25T17:15:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Policy complexity considerations</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/policy-complexity-considerations/m-p/17733#M12920</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Euh - you have 15 security policies on a 2050 and you are worrying about performance impact ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Funny &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I wouldn't worry too much about performance , even with 1000+ policies.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe managability and visibilty becomes an issue then , allthough by using (multiple) tags , you can even keep a +1000 policy understandable....&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2011 17:34:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/policy-complexity-considerations/m-p/17733#M12920</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bart_Jocque</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-11-25T17:34:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

