<?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 NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32290#M23672</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;I have a three internet access from different ISP. So I have 3 untrust(ethernet1/1, ethernet1/2, ethernet1/3)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; interface and on trust(ethernet1/4) interface. All of&amp;nbsp; them are in same virtual router. The default route will be on&amp;nbsp; ethernet1/1 interface (0.0.0.0/0 -&amp;gt; default gateway of ethernet 1/1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would like to use ethernet1/1 interface for some of internal IPs called X, so I made a source NAT. All traffic coming from these IP group will be use ethernet1/1 for internet access.(trust -&amp;gt; untrust,&amp;nbsp; from X&amp;nbsp; to any&amp;nbsp; -&amp;gt; source nat on ethernet1/1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The rest of the internal IPs will go to internet from ethernet1/2. To achive this which method is more suitable. NAT or PBF?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would like to forward the traffic to ethernet1/3 to access my internal server on a remote branch office.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am planning to write a PBF for this route. If I write a PBF, do I have to create a NAT rule too? or does PBF also handle NAT functionality?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Finally, Do I have to create additional route then default route in virtual router ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:21:03 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>migration</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-08-16T19:21:03Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32290#M23672</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;I have a three internet access from different ISP. So I have 3 untrust(ethernet1/1, ethernet1/2, ethernet1/3)&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; interface and on trust(ethernet1/4) interface. All of&amp;nbsp; them are in same virtual router. The default route will be on&amp;nbsp; ethernet1/1 interface (0.0.0.0/0 -&amp;gt; default gateway of ethernet 1/1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would like to use ethernet1/1 interface for some of internal IPs called X, so I made a source NAT. All traffic coming from these IP group will be use ethernet1/1 for internet access.(trust -&amp;gt; untrust,&amp;nbsp; from X&amp;nbsp; to any&amp;nbsp; -&amp;gt; source nat on ethernet1/1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The rest of the internal IPs will go to internet from ethernet1/2. To achive this which method is more suitable. NAT or PBF?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would like to forward the traffic to ethernet1/3 to access my internal server on a remote branch office.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am planning to write a PBF for this route. If I write a PBF, do I have to create a NAT rule too? or does PBF also handle NAT functionality?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Finally, Do I have to create additional route then default route in virtual router ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:21:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32290#M23672</guid>
      <dc:creator>migration</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-16T19:21:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32291#M23673</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Ismail,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe you are on the right track with the PBF and NAT.&amp;nbsp; PBF does not take care of NAT so you will have to do that separately.&amp;nbsp; The final configuration will depend on how you want the ISP redundancy to work (if any).&amp;nbsp; In any case you will have a combination of default route, PBF rules, and NAT rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kelly&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:26:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32291#M23673</guid>
      <dc:creator>kbrazil</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-16T21:26:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32292#M23674</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your feedback.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:02:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32292#M23674</guid>
      <dc:creator>migration</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-18T11:02:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32293#M23675</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Kelly,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You said that "PBF does not take care of NAT so you will have to do that separately"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But I have some doubts about this issue. Let me explain with an example.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let's that I have to ISP connection. If I want to forward only all youtube requests to second ISP via ethernet1/3.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The rest of the traffic will go over first ISP. I can write a PBF rule for youtube. Because PBF support rule for applications.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But, how can I write a NAT for only youtube application? There is no way to specify application in NAT rules.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I create a service based NAT rule, It can be only HTTP service, In this case all HTTP traffic will go over second ISP?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess, PBF does not require extra NAT rules?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:32:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32293#M23675</guid>
      <dc:creator>migration</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-29T15:32:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT or policy based routing in multiple ISP case</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32294#M23676</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ismail&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can write the NAT rule to match the destination interface- i..e any traffic going out via e1/3 which in your case is the youtube traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That will be one way to tie the NAT rule with PBF rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;jerish&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 16:54:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nat-or-policy-based-routing-in-multiple-isp-case/m-p/32294#M23676</guid>
      <dc:creator>jpa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-08-30T16:54:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

