<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: VSX - Virtual System NAT behind a Virtual Router IP? in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112619#M15652</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Dunno that a virtual router is any less processing than a VS, particularly one that would be firewall only.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2021 00:01:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-03-07T00:01:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>VSX - Virtual System NAT behind a Virtual Router IP?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112615#M15649</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good afternoon everyone!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are working with a customer with a high number of Virtual Systems in a VSX Cluster. One request is that all DNS requests go out a single interface to a specific server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The plan was to use a Virtual Router for all the VSs, however we ran into an addressing issue. Now, from what we have 'googled', a Virtual Rouger does not support NAT, although through testing we noticed we can actually replace a VR policy for your own (tested to respond to ping).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to have a Virtual Router do Hide NAT to an external IP? If not, any recommendations on how we could pull this off (other than just creating 100+ addresses and routing to the VR)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;RK&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 20:34:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112615#M15649</guid>
      <dc:creator>RKinsp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-06T20:34:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX - Virtual System NAT behind a Virtual Router IP?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112616#M15650</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;As far as I know, virtual routers don’t do NAT.&lt;BR /&gt;Why not just create a VS that does this?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 21:37:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112616#M15650</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-06T21:37:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX - Virtual System NAT behind a Virtual Router IP?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112617#M15651</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This system is already up to 150 VSs, so I am just trying to optimize on the processing wherever possible, but it might be the only way...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2021 21:53:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112617#M15651</guid>
      <dc:creator>RKinsp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-06T21:53:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: VSX - Virtual System NAT behind a Virtual Router IP?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112619#M15652</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dunno that a virtual router is any less processing than a VS, particularly one that would be firewall only.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2021 00:01:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/VSX-Virtual-System-NAT-behind-a-Virtual-Router-IP/m-p/112619#M15652</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-07T00:01:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

