Replace Local Firewall object (address) with Panorama pushed object?

[JesseLeiker]

So we are migrating ASA's to Palo Alto...like TONS of them.  My question is quite simple and I've yet been able to find an answer.  Lets use the following for theoreticals: 

Local Firewall A has an address-group of "g-RFC1918" on it. 
I've defined "g-RFC1918" as a Shared object for my Device Group: "Local Firewalls"

Upon a push I get the following response: 

• Validation Error:
• . address -> g-RFC1918 'g-RFC1918' is already in use
• . address is invalid
• . vsys1
• . Error: Duplicate address name 'g-RFC1918'
• . (Module: device)
• . client device phase 1 failure
• . Commit failed

So, my basic question is: can I override a local firewall object with a Panorama object?  The alternative thus far is basically to rename "g-RFC1918" on thus-far 50 firewalls with "g-RFC1918_old" - then I push from Panorama, then I modified hundreds of policies via set commands to use the Pano-pushed version, then delete the "g-RFC1918_old"   

It's a REAL pain the rear.  Just wondering if there is a way to do this.  Thanks all.  

[BPry · Accepted solution]

@JesseLeiker,

I don't believe that you have a path forward to do this outside of either removing/renaming the local object or changing the name in Panorama. The firewall can't create the merged_config.xml if it has two objects that have the same name, one of them will need to be renamed or removed.

[TomYoung]

Hi @JesseLeiker ,

What is your process to migrate the firewalls?  Generally speaking, if NGFWs will be managed by Panorama, you don't want to create very many local policies and objects.  You can migrate the 3rd party firewall configs directly to Panorama.  I am curious if it is not too late to change the process.

Thanks,

Tom

[JesseLeiker]

So it IS too late, unfortunately.  We are probably 50% migrated, 30% ready, and 20% in "planning."  The biggest issue to begin with was I was brought in after things were purchased and kind of had to build Panorama in parallels with the migrations.    It's really not a great big deal (most of the "big" stuff is already done by the aforementioned process: renaming, swapping, removing) but I thought it would be a nice thing to have if ever it became overly tedious to get something like this done on a very large scale.