PAN-OS 9.0 Static Route Commit Warning

[MarkRosenecker]

Just a note here that I am getting a cosmetic warning during commit of a newly-upgraded PA-220 (my lab box) to PAN-OS 9.0.  

Prior to the upgrade, I had a static route in my virtual router, to redirect all traffic going to 192.168.1.0/24 to my tunnel.4 interface (which is an IPSec tunnel to another firewall).  The route does not specify a next-hop IP, just to throw it on the tunnel interface and be done with it.  This has always worked fine (and still does, in fact), but when I commit, I get the following warning in the commit log:

• Static route AmericanEagle next hop IP 0.0.0.0 is not in subnet of outgoing interface tunnel.4
• (Module: routed)

Again, it's not a problem, but I know a LOT of people do this.  It's a cosmetic error, and my routing is still working as-expected.  I just wanted to notify people...

Mark Rosenecker

[reaper]

hi @MarkRosenecker

did you reach out to support about this ?

[holbem]

In 9.0.1 there is still the same Warning appearing during commit.

Regards

Marc

[reaper]

@holbem @MarkRosenecker  have either of you reported this to support already?

It can't be resolved until TAC is informed and let investigate the issue

[santonic]

I got the same warning a couple of times, now it stopped even though I didn't change routing configuration.

[sarumughan]

COMMIT WARNING: NEXT HOP IP IS NOT IN SUBNET OF OUTGOING INTERFACE

Please look at this KB article. 

https://knowledgebase.paloaltonetworks.com/KCSArticleDetail?id=kA10g000000PLlGCAW

This is a new check introduced in 9.0 part of the new feature where FQDN can be used as "Next Hop."
An FQDN used as a static route next hop must resolve to an IP address that belongs to the same subnet as the interface you configured for the static route. For consistency, any option used for "Next Hop" will be subjected to this check.
NOTE: This is only a warning and does not cause the commit to fail.

Resolution : Ensure that the next hop must resolve to an IP address that belongs to the same subnet as the interface you configured for the static route.

[santonic]

Yes, but we got this error when we set next hop to 'none'. In this case this check is irrelevant. But I think they fixed it as I didn't see it for a while now.