<?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 Queries for DUAL ISP link in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/291975#M77330</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I am following this KB link to set this up&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClFiCAK" target="_blank"&gt;https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClFiCAK&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1/ So the documents says i have to setup 2 source NATs for each interface. Can we getaway by using the interface as ANY in NAT rule? What is the best practice?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2/ What about destination interface for the traffic coming to our hosted web-servers, Should there also be 2 destination NAT's? ISP will be re-routing/advertising our subnet on the faild-over link for traffic destined to us.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3/ What happens to HA, we have firewalls in Active-Passive, with path-monitoring profiles enabled on them. Should we disable path monitoring with dual links?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:56:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>raji_toor</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-10-08T15:56:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Queries for DUAL ISP link</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/291975#M77330</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am following this KB link to set this up&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClFiCAK" target="_blank"&gt;https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000ClFiCAK&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1/ So the documents says i have to setup 2 source NATs for each interface. Can we getaway by using the interface as ANY in NAT rule? What is the best practice?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2/ What about destination interface for the traffic coming to our hosted web-servers, Should there also be 2 destination NAT's? ISP will be re-routing/advertising our subnet on the faild-over link for traffic destined to us.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3/ What happens to HA, we have firewalls in Active-Passive, with path-monitoring profiles enabled on them. Should we disable path monitoring with dual links?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2019 15:56:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/291975#M77330</guid>
      <dc:creator>raji_toor</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-08T15:56:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Queries for DUAL ISP link</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/292046#M77333</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you are definitely trying to use Dual ISP with automatic VPN failover, I would follow the KB article exactly.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As for the NAT rules, you definitely need to definite ingress interfaces vs using ANY.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You should probably be using loopback IPs that are available on both ISPs, so that if 1 ISP fails, the 2nd ISP will still know about the 2nd loopback address and inbound/destination NAT can still work (need to test thoroughly)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As for path monitoring, yes... i would agreed to turn it off from the HA config, but you need to ensure path monitoring is configured in your virtual router.&amp;nbsp; This way, if the VR determines the 1st ISP is down, then it can remove the route from the FIB table, and send traffic to the ISP, using the 2 NAT rule.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;This is why you MUST define, in your NAT, what addressed is to be used, based on the interface, to ensure the correct NAT statement/IP is used.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;More questions? &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":face_with_tongue:"&gt;😛&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;let us know.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2019 01:48:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/292046#M77333</guid>
      <dc:creator>S.Cantwell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-09T01:48:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Queries for DUAL ISP link</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/292146#M77361</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/113304"&gt;@S.Cantwell&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;Thanks for the answers. For us ISP providing L2/L3 still remains the same, its only physical link that goes to two different ISP's so that is not an issue. So I would be duplicating both the below NAT rules as an example with each destination interface, correct?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="image.png" style="width: 999px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/21737i3B02925EF3790E91/image-size/large/is-moderation-mode/true?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="image.png" alt="image.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Oct 2019 15:09:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/queries-for-dual-isp-link/m-p/292146#M77361</guid>
      <dc:creator>raji_toor</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-10-09T15:09:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

