This website uses cookies essential to its operation, for analytics, and for personalized content. By continuing to browse this site, you acknowledge the use of cookies.
For details on cookie usage on our site, read our Privacy Policy
For details on cookie usage on our site, read our Privacy Policy
About projxit
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- LIVEcommunity
- About projxit
03-25-2022
5Posts
0Likes
1Solution
Mar 25, 2022Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by projxit
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3702 | 06-18-2021 06:04 PM | |
| 8578 | 12-05-2019 03:32 PM | |
| 8722 | 08-03-2019 01:01 PM | |
| 4297 | 04-19-2019 05:41 PM | |
| 4299 | 04-19-2019 04:33 PM |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 04-19-2019 04:26 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 03-25-2022 07:07 PM |
| Posts | 5 |
06-18-2021
06:04 PM
I know this is an old question, but the way I've done this in the past is: Put the Portal and GW onto a loopback adapter Setup 2 NAT rules, 1 for each ISP, to forward GlobalProtect ports (443, 4501 etc) In the VR - ECMP setting, ensure you have Asynchronous return checked
... View more
12-05-2019
03:32 PM
Not sure if this will add to what you already know.. GlobalProtect does not store the credentials in the Registry, this may have been how it worked historically, but It changed sometime prior to v4.1.11, and several TAC engineers I've spoken with also thought this - But I know from experience this is not the case, after working on an AD Domain migration project, which required us to clear stored credentials on all endpoints as part of the migration process, we followed all the advise given from PA (and I spend hours on remote-sessions with TAC), but still, stored credentials remained! In the end, I identified they were being stored in the Windows Credential Manager, stored under "gpcp/LatestCP", they did eventually confirm this, and I'm surprised this is still not commonly known. If you cannot see it using Control Panel->User->Credentials Manager, run the legacy Key and Credentials Manager from the CMD - rundll32.exe keymgr.dll, KRShowKeyMgr
... View more
08-03-2019
01:01 PM
I had this exact same problem, even with a freshly installed OVA - The recommended steps I saw elsewhere were to run
apt update expedition-beta
Unfortunately this caused worse problems, I started seeing lots of empty "warning" dialog boxes popping open.
The solution in the end, was install a clean Ubuntu 16.04 Server VM (rather than using the OVA), then running the expedition install script.
... View more
04-19-2019
05:41 PM
Search and ye shall find 😄 I found this thread: https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/General-Topics/Latency-on-Internal-Interface/m-p/199444#M59109 Somebody else experienced something similar, and the fix seems to be running the following command via the cli: admin@PA-VM> set system setting dpdk-pkt-io off
Enabling/disabling DPDK Packet IO mode requires a device reboot. Do you want to continue? (y or n)
Device is now in non-DPDK IO mode, please reboot device
admin@PA-VM> This worked for me.. afte a reboot, my pings were down to 1-2ms on the VM!
... View more
04-19-2019
04:33 PM
Hi All At home I run a PA-200, but I've been toying with the idea of moving to a VM (both lab-licences).. But whilst the VM runs WebUI runs 100x quicker, MGT interface is fine, but on the actual FW interface it has a much higher ping latency. When pinging a FW interface on my PA-200, I get average of 1-2ms response times, but on the VM, I see anything from 3 to 20 milliseconds. If I ssh into the VM, and ping outbound from the PA-200 FW interface (ping source <INT> HOST <8.8.8.8>) is about 15ms , where from the VM i see 25-30ms. Whilst not enough to make it un-useable, the fact even local traffic has such a big increase is concerning. This is a fresh VM install, running PANos 9.x and absolutely no policies or filtering. I thought it might be a hardware issue, but I've tried on 2 different ESXi servers (A Dell Power T320, and a Dell 3010 i7), both dataplanes have very low CPU usage. Is this normal? (if so, I'll just suck it up) Could it be an issue with v9.x? Could anybody make recommendations? Ping from my PC to PA-200, Interface 1/2: Kelvins-MacBook-Pro-3:~ kelvin$ ping 192.168.10.1
PING 192.168.10.1 (192.168.10.1): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.10.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=1.543 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.10.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.590 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.10.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=1.323 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.10.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=1.590 ms Ping from my PC to PA VM, Interface 1/2: PING 192.168.12.102 (192.168.12.102): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.12.102: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=10.034 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=5.832 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=5.988 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.102: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=10.965 ms Ping from my PC to PA VM, MGT Interface: PING 192.168.12.101 (192.168.12.101): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.168.12.101: icmp_seq=0 ttl=63 time=0.754 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.101: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=0.650 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.101: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=0.849 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.12.101: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=0.780 ms FYI the VM Interface 1/2 and Management are on the same physical port.
... View more
Contact Me
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
03-25-2022
07:07 PM
|
Latest Tags
No tags yet
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2023 - Palo Alto Networks