<?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 monitoring and NAT in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250441#M71227</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try this solution later today and provide an update. thanks&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/15603"&gt;@Raido_Rattameister&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:05:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Modo2016</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-02-19T10:05:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Static Route monitoring and NAT</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250376#M71214</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm having an issue with my NAT policy.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;I've configured a backup ISP connection with a static route and a higher metric. When the primary ISP connection fails the routing portion works correctly and I can see the primary default route get removed from the routing table and the secondary kick in.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However,&amp;nbsp; the NAT policy is still trying to use primary ISP connection NAT rule.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any ideas, anybody?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 16:19:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250376#M71214</guid>
      <dc:creator>Modo2016</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-18T16:19:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route monitoring and NAT</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250389#M71219</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Are both wan interfaces in same zone?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If they are then don't leave "Destination Interface" to "Any"&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:14:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250389#M71219</guid>
      <dc:creator>Raido_Rattameister</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-18T18:14:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Static Route monitoring and NAT</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250441#M71227</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try this solution later today and provide an update. thanks&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/15603"&gt;@Raido_Rattameister&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2019 10:05:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/static-route-monitoring-and-nat/m-p/250441#M71227</guid>
      <dc:creator>Modo2016</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-02-19T10:05:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

