<?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: Split tunnel VPN inclusion rule - traffic dropped in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237819#M68138</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;It's now resolved.&lt;BR /&gt;It turns out that firewall rule was missing. (I wasn't the one who did the initial implementation)&lt;BR /&gt;I've thought it's a lot more complex nitty-gritty, but in the end it all comes to firewall rule.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:14:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>000000</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-10-30T17:14:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Split tunnel VPN inclusion rule - traffic dropped</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237628#M68087</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Community,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I need to allow traffic to come down the VPN tunnel rather than the Split Tunnel.&lt;BR /&gt;I have addred a VPN tunnel inclusion rule on the GlobalProtect Gateways as described in this article:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/80/pan-os/newfeaturesguide/globalprotect-features/split-tunnel-to-exclude-by-access-route" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/documentation/80/pan-os/newfeaturesguide/globalprotect-features/split-tunnel-to-exclude-by-access-route&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The logs shows that one of the destination is "allow" with&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;aged-out, the second is dropped.&lt;BR /&gt;To me it seems like some routing issue, but I just don't know why this is dropped by the firewall since there is inclusion?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I am sure I am missing something ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 17:13:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237628#M68087</guid>
      <dc:creator>000000</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-29T17:13:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Split tunnel VPN inclusion rule - traffic dropped</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237704#M68103</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can you provide screenshot of the log?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2018 21:40:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237704#M68103</guid>
      <dc:creator>Raido_Rattameister</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-29T21:40:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Split tunnel VPN inclusion rule - traffic dropped</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237819#M68138</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It's now resolved.&lt;BR /&gt;It turns out that firewall rule was missing. (I wasn't the one who did the initial implementation)&lt;BR /&gt;I've thought it's a lot more complex nitty-gritty, but in the end it all comes to firewall rule.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:14:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/split-tunnel-vpn-inclusion-rule-traffic-dropped/m-p/237819#M68138</guid>
      <dc:creator>000000</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-30T17:14:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

