<?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 Equal Metric Default Route using a Single Virtual Router (Single ISP Providing 2x Internet Circuits) in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28946#M21156</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are in the process of replacing an internet facing Check Point (NokiaIP560) deployment with Palo Alto (PA-2050) running PAN-OS 5.0.9.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The current checkpoint deployment has two equal cost default routes to the upstream providers routes.&amp;nbsp; These two next hop IP addresses are the multi-group VRRP IP addresses to achieve outbound load sharing.&amp;nbsp; Below is the "show route" output from the Check Point firewalls routing table, it appears to show two equal cost static default routes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;S&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0.0.0.0/0&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; via x.x.x.209, eth-s4p1c0, cost 0, age 31245795&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; via x.x.x.210, eth-s4p1c0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Does anyone know if Palo Alto will support the above equal cost/metric default route in the way Check Point does?&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;If we &lt;/SPAN&gt;attempt&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt; to add the two static routes as above, the commit fails with the error:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;In virtual-router default, the static route Default-2 metric value 10 is not unique among static routes to destination 0.0.0.0/0.(Module: routed)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="commit_common" style="padding-left: 80px; color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;Config commit phase 1 aborted(Module: device)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="commit_common" style="padding-left: 80px; color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;Commit failed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If we are not able to duplicate the Check Point routing, we believe this would mean sending all outbound traffic on a single default route to a single upstream router IP address, and essentially loose the ability to load share the two upstream Internet circuits thus loosing 50% of outbound bandwidth.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anyone have any suggestions on our scenario?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG alt="Single Virtual Router.jpg" class="jive-image" src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/legacyfs/online/10182_Single Virtual Router.jpg" style="width: 620px; height: 743px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:26:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Smi12</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-12-06T11:26:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Equal Metric Default Route using a Single Virtual Router (Single ISP Providing 2x Internet Circuits)</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28946#M21156</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are in the process of replacing an internet facing Check Point (NokiaIP560) deployment with Palo Alto (PA-2050) running PAN-OS 5.0.9.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The current checkpoint deployment has two equal cost default routes to the upstream providers routes.&amp;nbsp; These two next hop IP addresses are the multi-group VRRP IP addresses to achieve outbound load sharing.&amp;nbsp; Below is the "show route" output from the Check Point firewalls routing table, it appears to show two equal cost static default routes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;S&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; 0.0.0.0/0&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; via x.x.x.209, eth-s4p1c0, cost 0, age 31245795&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; via x.x.x.210, eth-s4p1c0&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Does anyone know if Palo Alto will support the above equal cost/metric default route in the way Check Point does?&amp;nbsp; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;If we &lt;/SPAN&gt;attempt&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt; to add the two static routes as above, the commit fails with the error:&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;In virtual-router default, the static route Default-2 metric value 10 is not unique among static routes to destination 0.0.0.0/0.(Module: routed)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="commit_common" style="padding-left: 80px; color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;Config commit phase 1 aborted(Module: device)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="commit_common" style="padding-left: 80px; color: #000000; font-family: Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; background-color: #ebedee;"&gt;Commit failed&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If we are not able to duplicate the Check Point routing, we believe this would mean sending all outbound traffic on a single default route to a single upstream router IP address, and essentially loose the ability to load share the two upstream Internet circuits thus loosing 50% of outbound bandwidth.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anyone have any suggestions on our scenario?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG alt="Single Virtual Router.jpg" class="jive-image" src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/legacyfs/online/10182_Single Virtual Router.jpg" style="width: 620px; height: 743px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 11:26:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28946#M21156</guid>
      <dc:creator>Smi12</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-06T11:26:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal Metric Default Route using a Single Virtual Router (Single ISP Providing 2x Internet Circuits)</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28947#M21157</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;PanOS does not support equal cost multipath at this point (ECMP).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You will have to use policy based routing (PBR)&amp;nbsp; and choose only one active default route.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a sample configuration to use PBR for a simple failover only setup with dual isp.&amp;nbsp; You would need to setup multiple PBR rules to push traffic out both ISP at the same time using different criteria.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/docs/DOC-1357"&gt;Dual ISP Branch Office Configuration&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 14:11:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28947#M21157</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-06T14:11:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal Metric Default Route using a Single Virtual Router (Single ISP Providing 2x Internet Circuits)</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28948#M21158</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can take it one step further with PBR.&amp;nbsp; You could create a policy that says:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; - policy-route 1/2 the users through ISPA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; - policy-route the other users through ISPB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; - policy-route all users through ISPA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; - policy-route all users through ISPB&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This way, if both connections are up (as determined by the PBR Monitor / Health Check), then you get utilization out of both ISPs.&amp;nbsp; Still not as nice as ECMP would be, but it's one way to get utilization out of both links when they're both up and running.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:09:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28948#M21158</guid>
      <dc:creator>jvalentine</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-06T21:09:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Equal Metric Default Route using a Single Virtual Router (Single ISP Providing 2x Internet Circuits)</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28949#M21159</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the quick answers!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's very disappointing that PA do not support ECMP, especially as our current CheckPoint platform does: &lt;A href="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R76/CP_R76_Gaia_Advanced_Routing_AdminGuide/89090.htm" title="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R76/CP_R76_Gaia_Advanced_Routing_AdminGuide/89090.htm"&gt;Routing Options&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyway we are raising this "feature" with our SE to confirm if it is under development.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:15:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/equal-metric-default-route-using-a-single-virtual-router-single/m-p/28949#M21159</guid>
      <dc:creator>Smi12</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-09T09:15:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

