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 axelrafaeltadoy
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- LIVEcommunity
- About axelrafaeltadoy
06-20-2022
4Posts
0Likes
0Solutions
Jun 20, 2022Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by axelrafaeltadoy
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4578 | 12-15-2020 12:52 PM | |
| 5305 | 12-01-2020 03:25 AM | |
| 5310 | 12-01-2020 03:23 AM | |
| 5600 | 11-20-2020 09:58 AM |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 06-26-2020 03:23 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 06-20-2022 07:21 PM |
| Posts | 4 |
12-16-2020
12:54 AM
I have to agree with @Mick.Ball the 0.0.0.0/0 route will still be in the routing table but the host will see this as a backup route, the 0.0.0.0/0 route that is via your home network gateway will be used as its metric is takes precedence over the one through the Global protect tunnel, if you were, for instance, to configure the Global Protect to tunnel all traffic then the metrics would be the other way around. As it is your include routes are tunnelled and the host will only use the GP default route should the 192 gateway become unavailable, however that would also cut off your connectivity so you would have bigger issues! My logic behind excluding the 0.0.0.0/0 route was simply that by actively excluding it, it may not find it's way into the routing table at all.
... View more
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2023 - Palo Alto Networks