<?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: GlobalProtect DNS server ignores the access routes in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4940#M3635</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the note. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess this make sense since you would need a route to use the DNS server.&amp;nbsp; So we would be adding a subnet for this route for the clients during the setup process.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But I'm with you, I like to have independent control of where the routes are installed on the network.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:01:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-09-15T10:01:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>GlobalProtect DNS server ignores the access routes</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4939#M3634</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hey all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just another PaloAlto funkiness I found out today...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When you configure a DNS server under the gateway configuration for GlobalProtect a route will automatically be added to route traffic to this DNS-ip through the tunnel: REGARDLESS of what you fill in in the access routes.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ex: DNS server: 10.0.0.1 and access route: 192.168.0.0/16&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When connected with GlobalProtect your Windows route table will be&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;192.168.0.0/16 -&amp;gt; GlobalProtect tunnel&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;10.0.0.1 -&amp;gt; GlobalProtect tunnel (although this ip is NOT in the access route range)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just something to think about when you are maybe running into routing issues like I was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 07:41:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4939#M3634</guid>
      <dc:creator>mr.linus</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-09-15T07:41:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GlobalProtect DNS server ignores the access routes</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4940#M3635</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the note. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I guess this make sense since you would need a route to use the DNS server.&amp;nbsp; So we would be adding a subnet for this route for the clients during the setup process.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But I'm with you, I like to have independent control of where the routes are installed on the network.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:01:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4940#M3635</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-09-15T10:01:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: GlobalProtect DNS server ignores the access routes</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4941#M3636</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3b3b3b; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, 'Lucida Grande', sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;"&gt;when we add the x.x.x.x/32 access route for the DNS server we also ensure this DNS server will always be reachable for clients, even if they are located in a network that overlaps the access route and possibly have a local resource with an identical IP (/32 has priority over all bigger subnets), or the access routes inadvertently don't cover the DNS' IP&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:31:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/globalprotect-dns-server-ignores-the-access-routes/m-p/4941#M3636</guid>
      <dc:creator>reaper</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-09-15T10:31:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

