<?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 Single Interface Trunk Hairpin problem for All traffic traversing Firewall? in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/single-interface-trunk-hairpin-problem-for-all-traffic/m-p/416519#M93436</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Have a site that we want to firewall traffic off into a few segmented zones. I would like to do all of this with 1 management interface, and a single palo alto trunked interface that would carry multiple vlans.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;To be clear, in this instance, the firewall would already be on the inside of the network and not an edge device.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The firewalled networks would all reside locally at this site, and traverse the trunk over a tagged interface to get back "out" to the rest of our networked sites traversing internet/mpls.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Most of the traffic would come into the site on a main tagged vlan&amp;nbsp; (either local computers at site or servers in remote destinations), hairpin to the segmented vlan(s), and then hairpin again - and respond back to the originator at a different interent/mpls site or to the main tagged vlan locally.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Can anyone think of any issues trying to use a single interface for trunking multiple vlans?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; My concern here is that traffic wouldn't be crossing interfaces in/out, but would be all using a trunk even for it's main data interface.&amp;nbsp; Thinking most admins are using 1 internal interface, and then 1 trunk interface for the rest of the local firewalled networks?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I understand that palo doesn't use native vlanning- so vlan 1 is out of the question if we trunk all of this I'm thinking?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Concerned with hairpin traffic, and any experiences anyone has had experimenting/implementing this.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 16:27:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Sec101</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-07-01T16:27:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Single Interface Trunk Hairpin problem for All traffic traversing Firewall?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/single-interface-trunk-hairpin-problem-for-all-traffic/m-p/416519#M93436</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Have a site that we want to firewall traffic off into a few segmented zones. I would like to do all of this with 1 management interface, and a single palo alto trunked interface that would carry multiple vlans.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;To be clear, in this instance, the firewall would already be on the inside of the network and not an edge device.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The firewalled networks would all reside locally at this site, and traverse the trunk over a tagged interface to get back "out" to the rest of our networked sites traversing internet/mpls.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Most of the traffic would come into the site on a main tagged vlan&amp;nbsp; (either local computers at site or servers in remote destinations), hairpin to the segmented vlan(s), and then hairpin again - and respond back to the originator at a different interent/mpls site or to the main tagged vlan locally.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Can anyone think of any issues trying to use a single interface for trunking multiple vlans?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; My concern here is that traffic wouldn't be crossing interfaces in/out, but would be all using a trunk even for it's main data interface.&amp;nbsp; Thinking most admins are using 1 internal interface, and then 1 trunk interface for the rest of the local firewalled networks?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I understand that palo doesn't use native vlanning- so vlan 1 is out of the question if we trunk all of this I'm thinking?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Concerned with hairpin traffic, and any experiences anyone has had experimenting/implementing this.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 16:27:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/single-interface-trunk-hairpin-problem-for-all-traffic/m-p/416519#M93436</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sec101</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-01T16:27:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Single Interface Trunk Hairpin problem for All traffic traversing Firewall?</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/single-interface-trunk-hairpin-problem-for-all-traffic/m-p/416660#M93446</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/157358"&gt;@Sec101&lt;/a&gt;,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This would work, but the main concern would really be if a single interface would be able to handle your traffic load without issue if it's handling&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;all&amp;nbsp;&lt;/EM&gt;of the traffic traversing this firewall.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2021 21:04:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/single-interface-trunk-hairpin-problem-for-all-traffic/m-p/416660#M93446</guid>
      <dc:creator>BPry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-01T21:04:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

