Has anyone found any solution to this? Several years later and PA still refuses to acknowedge this problem. The solution I posted still works but I still belive we should not have go through with all this considering Cisco Firewalls do not have this issue with dynamic ip and port NAT. I understand PA is a security company but I still have to answer to 4k Univeristy Students. I had to request more IPs and do this for our wireless and wired in the dorms.
I think the root of the problem is PA is trying to do this as a NAT type 1 and we are not asking for that. We are in need of NAT type 2 to work and that does not require open inbound ports.
I saw where someone recommend increasing UDP time out I am going to try that soon. I have to bring a PS4 to work to test this stuff....
I ended up putting a feature request in for this but there doesn't seem to be a great way to track it. If you check my post history, I added the FR # to the recent post here to collect known FRs.
We came to the same conclusion you did as we also had an ASA previously. The ASA's PAT implementation utilizes "sticky NAT" as well as a best effort to utilize the ports requested by the client.
We had two solutions and I actually ended up getting invited to do a presentation on a Palo Alto webex to present them to a few other universities.
Solution #1 was to create a EDL for game consoles after we reserved their IP in DHCP. The EDL was used in a Dynamic IP NAT translation which seems more forgiving than DIPP. This was time consuming as students had to call in and let us know they were having issues for us to add them to the list. Furthermore, it didn't solve the issue for every game... Ubisoft games especially seem to have a horrible network stack implementation and there are lots of complaints about it on their forums. Combine that with that at least some of their recent AAA titles have been basically peer-to-peer and it gets even worse.
Solution #2 is what we are currently using. We ended up purchasing Infoblox to do DHCP fingerprinting on game consoles and gaming PCs and created superscopes for each residence hall that contained two scopes: one with private addresses and one with some of or publics. Each scope has filters applied to deny consoles the private IPs but allow them to get the publics. Combine that with multinet configuration on our Cisco router for each SVI and we have game devices that pull public IP addresses with no need to do VLAN switching (which can be troublesome for the client even with COA from RADIUS).
That solution seems a bit controversial.... some admins I've talked to said they dislike the idea of handing out public IP addresses but we have them and we don't need all the ones we have for anything else right now. I don't believe we're in a position to lease or sell them so why not. Our firewall blocks all inbound connections to them so it isn't like they can run a web-available server.
The end result is the consoles don't need to NAT and actually usually show Type 1 Open now with some individual game network tests showing Type 2 Moderate. Ubisoft games still aren't always 100% but I can't fix bad programming. My only regret is that my current address space setup doesn't allow me to simply give a public IP to every resident device... they all just work so much better. Maybe IPv6 will help when we get a NAC solution that supports it.
I have put in more feature requests via our old rep and they are ignored. I will go look them up and post them later. We now have a new sales rep and sales SE as of last month. Slowly restoring my faith in PA customer support.
I have also opened another ticket with PA support and asking them to solve this or provide a solution... we will see what happens.
We have the same situation you are in. I ended up using our packetfence 802.1X to solve the issue for now.
We have 2 wireless SSID. One for SECURE 802.1X access to the network and the other is unencrypted using MAC auth via a user device registration portal.
If they register a gaming console, it puts them in a special Gaming VLAN in each dorm that gets a public ip with all INBOUND blocked. Works like a charm but teaching students how to use the thing is a problem every semester. We provide instructions but nobody reads now days......
I requests a new /20 from our ISP and waiting on a response. If they approve it I am going to just route WAN ip directly to the users and do away with NAT all together. Like you said all inbound will be blocked and if we set the lease time to 4hours for example it will keep rotating IPs because we have our DHCP set to never hand the device the same IP on renewal to avoid botnets or servers etc.
Working with PA support on NAT DIPP oversubscription , We might have stumbled across a solution.
I come from a cisco ASA background and always have used nat pool or many to many NAT. Recently we hit a NAT DIPP problem and as a result I personally had to get PA support to explain to me what was going on. After a detailed explanation and each model has a hardware limitation. PA support advised I shrink (use a /25 or smaller ) or stop using NAT pool and just NAT our customer behind a single IP. At first I was very against this idea but after PA support explained for them this is a best practice and because they are confident in how they block botnet and other malware, I broke down and did it. After a hour I notice a HUGE increase in traffic and as a result we went out and started testing our self. We found that things improved overall Latency / packet loss / etc. Also the warnings about NAT on commit went away about downgrading to 1x oversubscription.
I then had several XBOX and PS4 users redo network test and this resulted in OPEN or TYPE 2 NAT depending on the console.
I will confirm on Monday when I take my own PS4 and XBOX to work to test in the office, but I think avoiding NAT pool oversubscription might have fixed this issue. along with the firewall rules I posted early on to open the traffic to XBOX LIVE and Playstation Network.
Also we use secure works to watch our outgoing traffic and after 48hours and no notifications of botnet / malware from our RESNET. I was really worried going down to smaller subnet or single IP would have made us more vulnerable. I am guessing with us blocking incoming and the PA security features / protections this might be fine, but I am going to wait a full week before I make a final decision.
End result for the NAT was I mapped /22 to /21 for each building WiFi to a single ip. We have a large subnet to use thanks to our ISP. As a result I used a different IP for each building to avoid major oversubscription. for LAN users I am still using 1 to 1 NAT /24 to /24
I will report more as we move along but I think this might be a solution. Welcome to feedback sense this has been a very deep discussions with PA support.
@ASU-NetworkTeam I'll definitely be interested to hear the outcome of your tests. I did a ton of troubleshooting with them and I'm not sure we every tried a single IP. I'm actually currently running active/active firewalls and each firewall has access to the same /30 pool of IPs for NAT for each building. It's overkill at this point but I was re-doing our NAT space when we configured these and figured I'd plan in some growth.
I could probably reduce these so each firewall had 1 except if we have a failover scenario the other firewall wouldn't be able to accept the return traffic from the Internet that was originally destined for the downed firewall.
We're looking at a potential hardware upgrade in January and may move to an active/standby deployment. This solution, if it works, might be more feasible to try out at that point.
That being said, I have to say that using our public IP addresses for the students seems to make a lot of it easier. We've even talked about investigating whether we might have enough just to hand out a public IP for everything in ResNet.
Yes we stop doing the active / active due to budget. PA has some really outrageous pricing for active / active. It basically doubles the bill and not worth it in my opinion. You would be better off upgrading to a more powerful unit and doing active standby for budget reasons from what I have seen.
We have Active Standby and use LACP to a cisco 4500X routers. It works great and you also have the option to have the standby unit in no shut to keep routing protocol active if needed for faster fail over. Unless you have a need for the active / active because of usage, you are fine changing to active / passive. You know your network better than anyone so don’t just take my word, but it is worth researching it.
We have also found that the newer units are much more powerful than our older 5020 and the renewals are much LESS but the upfront purchase cost is ridiculous. I guess PA going to make $$$ somehow. You would think for the amount of money we pay we could at least get USA support 100%. I get so sick of calling and spending an hour or more getting passed the language barrier and then the technical explanation, or someone in India who really does not care and trying to just get the ticket closed.
So I test everything this morning XBOX and ps4. Xbox reports OPEN and ps4 is type 2 and working. The students are happy so far. Also issues with facetime quality and other things are gone. Using NAT pool apparently is a bad idea in palo alto world.
So yes down to two options. Route public WAN addresses to the clients or NAT each subnet to a different WAN address to avoid oversubscription.
I will post screenshots here in a few of what we did
Wow your setup sounds a lot llike mine. We've got two 5060 unit currently with two Cisco 4500-X in VSS to serve as routers for some of the networks and as fiber aggregation since the 5060s are limited on 10g port count.
We've actually had a lot of issues with the 4500-X stack, mainly because our current (and admittedly old) network design involves using policy based routing to push all traffic through the firewall for security and access control. We're also using VRF... VRF + PBR + no ip redirects = PBR failing. Cisco says the config isn't supported on that platform when using VRFs...
Our active/active was mostly for having dual homed 10gb connectivity to AREON. The former Network Services manager wanted to make as much use of the firewalls as possible... I agree although we honestly don't push enough traffic to saturate even one of those 10g connections. If we go with the 5200 series we were looking at one that will do at least 20gb with app and threat turned on and that would pretty much eliminate the last reason not to go with active/standby. It's going to simply our network design too as I've had all sorts of issues trying to get ECMP working with PBR on our older Cisco hardware.
I updated our cisco 4500X to the latest gold star and gained route map ability and started using that. In the latest gold star release you do not need a enterprise license to do a lot of things.
Our setup used to look like yours but I got sick of it and change lots of it to route maps and ACL because troubleshooting turned into a pain in the rear and also TAC kept saying the same thing to us. SIMPLE is better. You should really look at Nessus and do netflows etc to it for security and scans. Take some of the load off that FW and save $$$. Also we use packetfence for 802.1X with a Suricata box we mirror all traffic to. They work together and trigger violations to keep problem users off the network. also it is free.... we are also going to intergrate nessus into our packetfence security once we get the licenses for nesses to do end user devices.
We are looking to change from 5020 to 3260 for budget reasons. the renewal is 60% less a year
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 Live Community as a whole!
The Live Community thanks you for your participation!