<?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: Static Route to directly connected Subnet in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160514#M52313</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Is there an ip address in that subnet configured on the sub interface?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This should create a direct route automatically.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am assuming the PA is layer 3 for this setup is that right?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:59:07 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-06-10T10:59:07Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160489#M52310</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All, I am working with a project, where the firewall (PA-3020) is connected to a DMZ via its sub-interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two physical Copper interfaces in an aggregated group AE2 with LACP enabled, and then multiple sub-interfaces under that The DMZ sub-interface (ae2.4010) has a subnet of 192.168.66.0/24; however, I am unable to reach the backend servers on the same subnet, unless I add a null static route in the virtual router i.e 192.168.66.0/24 --&amp;gt; Interface: ae2.4010 --&amp;gt; Next Hop: None.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That's quite unusual, because all the other sub-interfaces have no issues, and I don't need to add any null routes to the VR. Does anybody have any clue what the problem might be in this instance?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 00:18:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160489#M52310</guid>
      <dc:creator>acc6d0b3610eec313831f7900fdbd235</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-10T00:18:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160514#M52313</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is there an ip address in that subnet configured on the sub interface?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This should create a direct route automatically.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am assuming the PA is layer 3 for this setup is that right?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 10:59:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160514#M52313</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-10T10:59:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160545#M52319</link>
      <description>Hi &lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/9524"&gt;@pulukas&lt;/a&gt; Yes the firewall sub-interface ae2.4010 has an IP address assigned. That was my expectation based on all the implementations I have done, I never had to add a static route to a subnet to which the firewall is directly connected. The firewall is in full Layer 3. All other sub-interfaces, are working just fine and I did not have to add static routes for those.</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 16:54:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160545#M52319</guid>
      <dc:creator>acc6d0b3610eec313831f7900fdbd235</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-10T16:54:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160552#M52321</link>
      <description>This is not unusual this sounds very strange...&lt;BR /&gt;Sorry for the question, but are you sure that there is no typo in the IP address of that subinterface? And did you enter the IP address maybe without a subnetmask or with the wrong one?&lt;BR /&gt;If you checked these things, what PAN-OS version is installed and could you may be share a screenshot of the actual routing table or at least check also there how it does look with and without this stub-route?</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 19:49:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160552#M52321</guid>
      <dc:creator>Remo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-10T19:49:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160578#M52328</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/16592"&gt;@Remo&lt;/a&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I did a modification on my sub-interface just now, for testing purposes.&lt;BR /&gt;Instead of adding only the IP address object with no mask in included the subnet mask /24. After that I was able to reach the servers on the same subnet.&lt;BR /&gt;It is a weird issue, because the IP address I had configured although not having the mask specified, was part of the same range as all the other backend servers; hence, I assumed it should've worked.&lt;BR /&gt;I was running the PAN-OS 7.1.7 before fixing the mask, and then upgraded to PAN-OS 7.1.10 now because I thought it could be a bug, but I was wrong. Bottom line, it works, but you have always to specify the actual mask to the address object.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 21:36:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160578#M52328</guid>
      <dc:creator>acc6d0b3610eec313831f7900fdbd235</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-10T21:36:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route to directly connected Subnet</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160615#M52346</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm surprised the PA does not automatically add the /32 mask to the interface if you plug in just an ip address.&amp;nbsp; This would make the issue more obvious to observe.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;glad you have it figured out.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 11 Jun 2017 23:38:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-to-directly-connected-subnet/m-p/160615#M52346</guid>
      <dc:creator>pulukas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-11T23:38:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

