<?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: NAT auto rules in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/178049#M32625</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Logical Server objects don't do any monitoring, so not sure this would work in this case.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:10:44 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-04-14T00:10:44Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177884#M32573</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello colleagues, question, how can I configure an automatic NAT with destination to 2 IPs, the first active and the second IP stand-by in case of failure of the first IP go to the 2nd IP?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2023 23:17:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177884#M32573</guid>
      <dc:creator>salonso</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-11T23:17:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177886#M32575</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You could set that up, then disable rules generated for the 2nd IP.&amp;nbsp; Not 100% certain it would let you install policy that way, but I can try it in the lab tomorrow and verify.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2023 23:24:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177886#M32575</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-11T23:24:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177888#M32577</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Are you working with an ISP redundancy scenario or something else and why auto-NAT specifically?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;One thing you could experiment with which may be relevant is the use of Zone objects in the NAT policy.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2023 23:44:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177888#M32577</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-11T23:44:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177971#M32603</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You will need to use a&amp;nbsp;Dynamic Object as a destination in your NAT rulebase.&lt;BR /&gt;You will also need to write a script that will monitor the relevant conditions and update the correct definition of said object on the relevant gateways.&lt;BR /&gt;For information on the dynamic_objects command (used to set the content of a dynamic object), see: &lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/skI1915" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/skI1915&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:58:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/177971#M32603</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-12T16:58:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/178044#M32620</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would consider the balancer (logical server object) approach. You will have a virtual IP that balances traffic across any number of servers you define.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Apr 2023 21:11:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/178044#M32620</guid>
      <dc:creator>Zolocofxp</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-13T21:11:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAT auto rules</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/178049#M32625</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Logical Server objects don't do any monitoring, so not sure this would work in this case.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 2023 00:10:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/NAT-auto-rules/m-p/178049#M32625</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-04-14T00:10:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

