<?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: Aruba AP Tunnel Problem in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231482#M66460</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/91072"&gt;@gmunoz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Generally for something like this I would actually utilize a custom application signature instead of relying on the built-in application IDs. If you don't have the experience&amp;nbsp;to build a custom app-id then I would use an application-override policy. This prevents updates of any type from killing controller access.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As a side note, I wouldn't use an app/service any policy for something like this. At the very least the application would be set the any and then the service would be set to a particular port, even when the firewall records insufficient-data this policy would allow the connection. As you've described the situation it sounds like you are allowing the APs full access to the controller regardless of application&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;and port&lt;/EM&gt; which is generally ill-advised and unnecessary.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:21:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-09-19T14:21:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Aruba AP Tunnel Problem</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231468#M66454</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello, I'm having problems with Aruba AP connection through a FW.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I got my APs in the inside zone, and the controller is in a DMZ. Previously I had a security rule that allowed aruba-papi and syslog app and the AP connected to the controller without any problems. But After I updated the firewall to 7.1 (now 7.1.19) the rule has not been working anymore (The controller cannot see any APs connected. In the traffic log I noticed that the firewall sees the tunnels as "insufficient-data" app instead of "aruba-papi"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I've tried adding "gre" app also but it didn't helped.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only thing that works now is an any app and any service rule.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has anyone had a similar problem?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 13:18:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231468#M66454</guid>
      <dc:creator>gmunoz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-19T13:18:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Aruba AP Tunnel Problem</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231482#M66460</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/91072"&gt;@gmunoz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Generally for something like this I would actually utilize a custom application signature instead of relying on the built-in application IDs. If you don't have the experience&amp;nbsp;to build a custom app-id then I would use an application-override policy. This prevents updates of any type from killing controller access.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As a side note, I wouldn't use an app/service any policy for something like this. At the very least the application would be set the any and then the service would be set to a particular port, even when the firewall records insufficient-data this policy would allow the connection. As you've described the situation it sounds like you are allowing the APs full access to the controller regardless of application&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;and port&lt;/EM&gt; which is generally ill-advised and unnecessary.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:21:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231482#M66460</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-19T14:21:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Aruba AP Tunnel Problem</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231489#M66466</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've tried using services instead of apps, but the connection between the APs and the controller it's also a gre tunel.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aruba says the following about placing a firewall between the AP and the controller:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="Body"&gt;Between an AP and the&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="ArubaFrameStylesC1-Controller"&gt;controller&lt;/SPAN&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;PAPI (UDP port 8211). If the AP uses DNS to discover the LMS&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="ArubaFrameStylesC1-Controller"&gt;controller&lt;/SPAN&gt;, the AP first attempts to connect to the master&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="ArubaFrameStylesC1-Controller"&gt;controller&lt;/SPAN&gt;. (Also allow DNS (UDP port 53) traffic from the AP to the DNS server.)&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;PAPI (UDP port 8211). All APs running as Air Monitors (AMs) require a permanent PAPI connection to the master&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN class="ArubaFrameStylesC1-Controller"&gt;controller&lt;/SPAN&gt;.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;FTP (TCP port 21).&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;TFTP (UDP port 69) all APs, if there is no local image on the AP (for example, a new AP) the AP will use TFTP to retrieve the initial image.&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;SYSLOG (UDP port 514).&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;PAPI (UDP port 8211).&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;TABLE cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;SPAN class="Bullet"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;GRE (protocol 47).&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you know how to permit gre without using app?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:50:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231489#M66466</guid>
      <dc:creator>gmunoz</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-19T14:50:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Aruba AP Tunnel Problem</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231490#M66467</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/91072"&gt;@gmunoz&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;GRE should be identified correctly yes? There are some instances where you need to create multiple rules to get everything to work properly, this may be one of them.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You effectively have two options:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) Build a custom application to identify the PAPI traffic, or use an application-override policy to specify this traffic as aruba-papi again. Then your policy as built would work perfectly fine.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Create multiple policies to allow all the required pieces. You could have one for all the traffic properly identified by app-id ( assuming FTP TFTP SYSLOG GRE) and then create a seperate policy that explicitly allows 8211/UDP for the PAPI traffic.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;One allows a cleaner security rulebase while adding an entry in the application-override rulebase; the other simply adds an additional entry directly to the security rulebase.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:15:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/aruba-ap-tunnel-problem/m-p/231490#M66467</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-09-19T15:15:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

