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 ailfionn
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
- LIVEcommunity
- About ailfionn
11-01-2016
5Posts
0Likes
0Solutions
Nov 01, 2016Last Visited
User
Activity
User
Profile
Latest posts by ailfionn
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2017 | 09-01-2011 08:37 AM | |
| 2087 | 09-01-2011 06:57 AM | |
| 1807 | 02-11-2011 11:34 AM | |
| 1807 | 02-11-2011 10:42 AM | |
| 2141 | 02-11-2011 09:00 AM |
User Badges
Community Statistics
| Member Since | 10-06-2010 05:51 AM |
| Date Last Visited | 11-01-2016 09:26 AM |
| Posts | 5 |
09-01-2011
08:37 AM
Thanks for the quick reply. So does that mean the source port can be anything from 1-65535 on version 3.1?
... View more
09-01-2011
06:57 AM
Under security rules does service refer to source port or destination port and what is the best way to define both source port and destination port in a rule on version 3.1.6
... View more
02-11-2011
11:34 AM
Cheers, Yes that is exactly what I changed to. Sub interfaces. They are both on the same switch so obviously I do not want to enable routing on the switch but perform the routing through the PA. I think I am working ok now but will fully test next week. Thanks for your suggestions
... View more
02-11-2011
10:42 AM
Thanks for this. I am saying that pings indicate 'allow' on the traffic log but internal to dmz pings are not getting a response?. I got 2 dmz's working in the last hour by adjusting native vlan on the Cisco switch to the specific vlan and changing every interface to trunking and allowing vlan 1 as well as the vlan I wanted. I am not comfortable that I have actually cracked it yet so any more information would be good.
... View more
02-11-2011
09:00 AM
I have an issue with getting 2 DMZs working in layer 3 mode on Palo Alto version 3.1.7. I have set up my first DMZ and can communicate perfectly with the internal network. When I setup a second dmz (using completely different interface ports), but exactly the same configuration I cannot communicate from the internal network to the new dmz. Funnily I can communicate perfectly from the new DMZ to the internal but not the other way around. I have enabled policies both ways and if I ping I can see the traffic being allowed both ways. I have double checked the routing and that seems fine as well. I have come to th conclusion there must be some simple configuration to solve this that I am missing :smileyconfused:or there is a bug in the Palo Alto software. Also since I upgraded to version 3.1.7 I get the following error when I do a commit device: Invalid address value 'NaN' Anyone had a similar issue
... View more
Contact Me
| Online Status |
Offline
|
| Date Last Visited |
11-01-2016
09:26 AM
|
Latest Tags
No tags yet
LEGAL NOTICES
Copyright 2007 - 2023 - Palo Alto Networks