<?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 Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4528#M80</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;On a 5100 R80.10, need to direct&amp;nbsp;all outbound traffic on port TCP/80 to a second ISP interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Already checked:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- ISP redundancy (no&amp;nbsp;port control, even on load-balancing)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Policy Based Routing (cannot define the general destination 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 on any rule)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Did any one found any solution or workaround to this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:08:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Rui_Meleiro</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-07-26T17:08:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4528#M80</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;On a 5100 R80.10, need to direct&amp;nbsp;all outbound traffic on port TCP/80 to a second ISP interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Already checked:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- ISP redundancy (no&amp;nbsp;port control, even on load-balancing)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Policy Based Routing (cannot define the general destination 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 on any rule)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Did any one found any solution or workaround to this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:08:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4528#M80</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rui_Meleiro</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-26T17:08:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4529#M81</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Instead of trying to do a 0.0.0.0, you might try breaking the Policy-Based Routes into a series of smaller routes, such as:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;0.0.0.0/1&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;128.0.0.0/2&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;192.0.0.0/3&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;That should cover anything routable via IPv4 on the Internet (and some stuff that isn't).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 23:36:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4529#M81</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-26T23:36:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4530#M82</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;So, subnetting the Internet is the answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate your suggestion as a great workaround - wish I had thought of it before.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But, having used Checkpoint in the late 90's and now again since June 2017, I'm continuously amazed by these "limitations" that keep appearing that have been already addressed by other manufacturers I have worked with in the past (Cisco, Fortinet...). Why Checkopint won't use something that was devised specifically for these situations ("quad-zero route" or "gateway of last resort") continuously amazes me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again Dameon.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:07:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4530#M82</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rui_Meleiro</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-27T00:07:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4531#M83</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Subnetting the Internet&amp;nbsp;was just me being creative. &lt;img id="smileyhappy" class="emoticon emoticon-smileyhappy" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.png" alt="Smiley Happy" title="Smiley Happy" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I did ask R&amp;amp;D and the official answer&amp;nbsp;is to create a rule that specifies both the inbound interface and TCP port 80.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just specifying the TCP port isn't sufficient.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When you do that, you can use a default route as the destination.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:37:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4531#M83</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-27T00:37:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4532#M84</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Creative indeed. I had in fact tried several combinations on PBR including specifying the inbound interface and port, and PBR works pretty well on specific subnets. My question was on the quad-zero route and how to specify it as the interface disallows it.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Time to get a good &amp;nbsp;IP calculator and work my way around 10.0.0.0/8, 192.168.0.0/16...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 01:03:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4532#M84</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rui_Meleiro</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-27T01:03:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4533#M85</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think I was able to do it without subneting.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As a test, I routed port 8080 out a different interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I confirmed a TCP connection to port 8080 to some random Internet host was indeed routing out the specified interface.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It looks like this in the Gaia WebUI:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG class="image-1 jive-image" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/57579_pastedImage_1.png" style="width: 620px; height: 329px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The "test" route was created like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(Note, I clicked the "default" here, but the IP here is most definitely not my default route)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG class="image-2 jive-image" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/57580_pastedImage_2.png" style="width: auto; height: auto;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The policy rule looks like this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG class="image-3 jive-image" src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/57581_pastedImage_3.png" style="width: auto; height: auto;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:02:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4533#M85</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-27T05:02:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Directing specific ports traffic to second ISP interface</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4534#M86</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, that's an elegant solution. Somehow I understood "default route" as "default gateway" and not by face value. I can confirm it does work, although the requests are being NAT'ed, which I think they shouldn't. But the main issue of service routing is accomplished, thank you.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And, of course, my previous rant on Checkpoint is meaningless now &lt;IMG src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/emoticons/wink.png" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jul 2017 17:36:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Directing-specific-ports-traffic-to-second-ISP-interface/m-p/4534#M86</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rui_Meleiro</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-07-27T17:36:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

