Enhanced Security Measures in Place:   To ensure a safer experience, we’ve implemented additional, temporary security measures for all users.

Need TGW (Hub-and-Spoke route table) or not?

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Announcements

Need TGW (Hub-and-Spoke route table) or not?

L1 Bithead

Hi

 

In the AWS Reference Architecture Guide (version Apr 19, 2021),

it use AWS GWLB to connect to other spoke VPC.

Does it means VPC to VPC do not need AWS TGW? (Hub and spoke route table)

So all traffic can use GWLB (private link) connect to other Spoke VPC without go to TGW?

1 accepted solution

Accepted Solutions

L2 Linker

Yes and no. Remember GWLBs and TGWs serve specific purposes. If you just want VPC to VPC connectivity you can use VPC Peering. If you want to inspect traffic VPC to VPC using a pair of PAN FWs, you would use GWLB. If you want to perform dynamic routing with BGP over IPSec to on-prem with AZ redundancy, the TGW is still a good option.

 

With the GWLB architecture, the firewall takes over the routing that would normally be done by the TGW (Hub and Spoke RT). That is because each GWLBe is mapped to an interface and zone on the FW and native routing is used. It's also much faster. In the old architecture, the Palo's had to have an IPSEC tunnel to the TGW which was limited to 1.25Gbps.

 

Get out there and do great things!

View solution in original post

2 REPLIES 2

L2 Linker

Yes and no. Remember GWLBs and TGWs serve specific purposes. If you just want VPC to VPC connectivity you can use VPC Peering. If you want to inspect traffic VPC to VPC using a pair of PAN FWs, you would use GWLB. If you want to perform dynamic routing with BGP over IPSec to on-prem with AZ redundancy, the TGW is still a good option.

 

With the GWLB architecture, the firewall takes over the routing that would normally be done by the TGW (Hub and Spoke RT). That is because each GWLBe is mapped to an interface and zone on the FW and native routing is used. It's also much faster. In the old architecture, the Palo's had to have an IPSEC tunnel to the TGW which was limited to 1.25Gbps.

 

Get out there and do great things!

L0 Member

GWLBs and TGWs serve specific purposes, the TGW is still a good option.

 

  • 1 accepted solution
  • 2881 Views
  • 2 replies
  • 0 Likes
Like what you see?

Show your appreciation!

Click Like if a post is helpful to you or if you just want to show your support.

Click Accept as Solution to acknowledge that the answer to your question has been provided.

The button appears next to the replies on topics you’ve started. The member who gave the solution and all future visitors to this topic will appreciate it!

These simple actions take just seconds of your time, but go a long way in showing appreciation for community members and the LIVEcommunity as a whole!

The LIVEcommunity thanks you for your participation!