<?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 Route convergence when using a Redistribution Profile in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/198387#M58892</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;This is my scenario. &amp;nbsp;I have an eBGP relationship from my PA to Vendor A and Vendor B. &amp;nbsp;I have users that traverse this firewall and use their respective applications. &amp;nbsp;I have Vendor C which is a site-to-site vpn. &amp;nbsp;I'm doing a routed vpn with this vendor and I have static routes for Vendor C going across the tunnel interface. &amp;nbsp;The issue I am having is&amp;nbsp;the route was configured in the static route and added to the redistribution profile for Vendor C. &amp;nbsp;When I committed the change users that were working with applications from &amp;nbsp;Vendor A and B dropped. &amp;nbsp;The drop was about 30 seconds and then came back. &amp;nbsp;The PA never lost the bgp peer with either vendor but the applications dropped. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I ran a test by sending a ping to the destination IP in Vendor A's network and about 30 seconds to a minute after the commit change I dropped my ping. &amp;nbsp;What I noticed was that the route went away even though I could see it in the firewall route table. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone out in the community seen or experienced this? &amp;nbsp;When adding a route to the redistribution profile is there a route re-convergence that happens? &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:36:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>johnsonto</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-02-02T01:36:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Route convergence when using a Redistribution Profile</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/198387#M58892</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This is my scenario. &amp;nbsp;I have an eBGP relationship from my PA to Vendor A and Vendor B. &amp;nbsp;I have users that traverse this firewall and use their respective applications. &amp;nbsp;I have Vendor C which is a site-to-site vpn. &amp;nbsp;I'm doing a routed vpn with this vendor and I have static routes for Vendor C going across the tunnel interface. &amp;nbsp;The issue I am having is&amp;nbsp;the route was configured in the static route and added to the redistribution profile for Vendor C. &amp;nbsp;When I committed the change users that were working with applications from &amp;nbsp;Vendor A and B dropped. &amp;nbsp;The drop was about 30 seconds and then came back. &amp;nbsp;The PA never lost the bgp peer with either vendor but the applications dropped. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I ran a test by sending a ping to the destination IP in Vendor A's network and about 30 seconds to a minute after the commit change I dropped my ping. &amp;nbsp;What I noticed was that the route went away even though I could see it in the firewall route table. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone out in the community seen or experienced this? &amp;nbsp;When adding a route to the redistribution profile is there a route re-convergence that happens? &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:36:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/198387#M58892</guid>
      <dc:creator>johnsonto</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-02-02T01:36:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route convergence when using a Redistribution Profile</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/560875#M113684</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Johnsonto&lt;BR /&gt;Hope you are doing well.&lt;BR /&gt;I was wondering if you figure out what is the solution to resolve this issue.&lt;BR /&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2023 07:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/560875#M113684</guid>
      <dc:creator>LOkazawa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-10-07T07:11:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route convergence when using a Redistribution Profile</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/995716#M122261</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Did you ever find a solution to this? I see something similar but not exact. I have a static route pointing to a host route /32 on the inside interface, so the static route should only advertise via eBGP when the /32 route is seen.on the inside interface. It is a recursive route. It works, but from time to time the eBGP no longer has the static route. I clearly see the route for the /32 host route and the /32 static route that points to it in the routing table of the Palo Alto.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 09:26:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/route-convergence-when-using-a-redistribution-profile/m-p/995716#M122261</guid>
      <dc:creator>CCIE11129</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-11-29T09:26:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

