<?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 Asymmetric Routing and TCP Syn Check in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287170#M76681</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a scenario where I will be having two ISP's (ISP-A and ISP-B) connected to the PA Firewalls via eth1/1 and eth1/2 interfaces.&amp;nbsp;Both these Interfaces will be in the same untrust-zone. ISP-A will be the primary one and ISP-B the backup&amp;nbsp;with some prepends and local preference for incoming and outgoing traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;However, ISP-B has confirmed that there will be cases where some external users using ISP-B will always prefer to come to Firewalls via ISP-B.This will cause an asymmetric routing where some of the incoming traffic is via ISP-B and outgoing is via ISP-A.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since both Interfaces are in the same-zone some users have confirmed that session will match and traffic won't drop and Palo can handle the return traffic.&lt;BR /&gt;Has anyone configured similar setup successfully? Are there any gotchas with this kind of setup? If anyone can guide me to a formal Palo Guide would be vaulable too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;AS&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2019 03:45:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anjush</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-09-07T03:45:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Asymmetric Routing and TCP Syn Check</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287170#M76681</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a scenario where I will be having two ISP's (ISP-A and ISP-B) connected to the PA Firewalls via eth1/1 and eth1/2 interfaces.&amp;nbsp;Both these Interfaces will be in the same untrust-zone. ISP-A will be the primary one and ISP-B the backup&amp;nbsp;with some prepends and local preference for incoming and outgoing traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;However, ISP-B has confirmed that there will be cases where some external users using ISP-B will always prefer to come to Firewalls via ISP-B.This will cause an asymmetric routing where some of the incoming traffic is via ISP-B and outgoing is via ISP-A.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since both Interfaces are in the same-zone some users have confirmed that session will match and traffic won't drop and Palo can handle the return traffic.&lt;BR /&gt;Has anyone configured similar setup successfully? Are there any gotchas with this kind of setup? If anyone can guide me to a formal Palo Guide would be vaulable too.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;BR /&gt;AS&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2019 03:45:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287170#M76681</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anjush</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-07T03:45:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Asymmetric Routing and TCP Syn Check</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287198#M76687</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Anjush,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The PAN-OS implementation, the firewall identifies the flow using 6 tuple key:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;Src &amp;amp; Dst IP address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;Src &amp;amp; Dst ports&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;Protocol&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;Security Zone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, As long as both the ISP interface are in same zone and the security policies are configured on the basis of security zone only then you would be good.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2019 20:36:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287198#M76687</guid>
      <dc:creator>JAIDEEP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-07T20:36:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Asymmetric Routing and TCP Syn Check</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287207#M76690</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;FYI:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000Cm0xCAC" target="_blank"&gt;https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000Cm0xCAC&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2019 21:22:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/asymmetric-routing-and-tcp-syn-check/m-p/287207#M76690</guid>
      <dc:creator>myky</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-07T21:22:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

