We are currently testing out/learning with a new 3250 in no rules / allow all traffic mode flowing from ISP > Palo > Cisco ASA (Being Retired).
We have two public ips routed to two local static IPs and those have stopped working. Would a policy need to be created so the Palo does the routing and not the Cisco.
Thank you for the post @jpierce
to answer your question for policies, the answer is no. For OSPF as well as BGP traffic, it should hit "intrazone-default" policy with the exception of BGP peer that is using update source address assigned to different zone, then this traffic might get blocked.
Regarding the issue with lost routes without further details, it is hard to give any advice, however as a next step, I would check whether your routing protocol adjacency/neighbor neighborship is established, check routing/forwarding table and system log.
It sounds like you are attempting to put the Palo Alto inline in a 'virtual wire' mode. This way you can see all the traffic and possibly apply policies to this. Let us know how you plan to perform a stepped approach and we can provide guidance.
The way I usually do this is configure the PAN with all the layer 3/4 policies in the ASA and swap them out during a maintenance window. Then put in the layer 7 policies above the layer 3/4 ones and ones the 3/4 ones no longer get any hits, I disable them.
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!