Just started with Palo and was researching the optimal way of configuring ISP failover to include automatic failover of site to site tunnels.
Is there a reason to use PBF over static route removal?
Based on the reading date I was doing today, SRR appears less convoluted than PBF and seems the most similar to Cisco's SLA configuration which worked well for me before.
I have done this many times. First I setup VPN connections via both ISP's. Then I create OSPF adjacencies between the two VPN endpoints. I then use metrics so that I force the traffic down the VPN tunnel I choose as primary and secondary. So for the secondary i would choose a metric such as 5000, this makes sure the primary tunnel is the preferred one.
I have also used Policy based forwarding to accomplish the same thing. IT all depends on which one you are most comfortable with.
Hi @Evahi21 ,
If you have at least 1 public IP address advertised to both ISPs, I would use a loopback for a single VPN tunnel. That design is by far the simplest, but requires a separate public subnet than the ones on the interfaces.
Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.
The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!
These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!
The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!