<?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 Nested Palo Alto Object Groups in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32656#M23918</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;Does anyone know if there are any recommendations on the use of nested groupings within PA policies - specifically the PA objects?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In terms of maintaining 'easy to read' policies I wanted to make use of nesting to keep the policies simple, which will mean using nesting up to around 3 tiers - see following random example:-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Win2k8_Server_DC -- in grp --&amp;gt; Domain Controllers -- in grp --&amp;gt; UK DNS Servers -- in grp --&amp;gt; Global DNS Servers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is whether this level of nesting is recommended for Palo's; specifically whether it puts any additional strain on the policy compilation/commit process and/or running processes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:21:37 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>apackard</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-03-06T12:21:37Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Nested Palo Alto Object Groups</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32656#M23918</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;Does anyone know if there are any recommendations on the use of nested groupings within PA policies - specifically the PA objects?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In terms of maintaining 'easy to read' policies I wanted to make use of nesting to keep the policies simple, which will mean using nesting up to around 3 tiers - see following random example:-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Win2k8_Server_DC -- in grp --&amp;gt; Domain Controllers -- in grp --&amp;gt; UK DNS Servers -- in grp --&amp;gt; Global DNS Servers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is whether this level of nesting is recommended for Palo's; specifically whether it puts any additional strain on the policy compilation/commit process and/or running processes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:21:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32656#M23918</guid>
      <dc:creator>apackard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-06T12:21:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Nested Palo Alto Object Groups</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32657#M23919</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I dont think there is any limitation on the level of grouping. you can try this using a test address and create a rule. See if your are hitting the right rule when the traffic is coming from the corresponding address (nested address group in this case).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Tx,&lt;BR /&gt;Sandeep T &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:32:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32657#M23919</guid>
      <dc:creator>sdurga</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-06T23:32:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Nested Palo Alto Object Groups</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32658#M23920</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I know that the nested groups 'work', it's more a question whether using them has any performance impact.&amp;nbsp; I've found that some functionality within the UI and policy structure can have a detrimental effect - especially during commiting - and was wondering whether there are any recommendations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Will have a hunt round and maybe do some comparitive testing to see if I can judge for myself!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rgds&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 23:38:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nested-palo-alto-object-groups/m-p/32658#M23920</guid>
      <dc:creator>apackard</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-03-06T23:38:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

