<?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: Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30 in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59944#M84591</link>
    <description>hello,&lt;BR /&gt;thanks for help.&lt;BR /&gt;as i understood - any in source column is not a problem. only any in destination and service column?</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:13:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Daniel_Hainich</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-08-09T12:13:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59795#M84588</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;after migration from R77.30 to R80.20 i want to use inline layers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;can i do an "soft-migration" and add some inline layers?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;can i use ordered and inline-layers at the same time?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;in maxpower-book i read to not use "any" object. but in R80.20 demo mode, many rules are with any.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;so should i avoid any, or is it with inline-layers no problem to use any?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;daniel&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2019 08:43:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59795#M84588</guid>
      <dc:creator>Daniel_Hainich</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-07T08:43:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59931#M84589</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/19255"&gt;@Daniel_Hainich&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Yes, you can migrate as is and later convert some of your rules into sub-layers. We have shown an example of such conversion during one of our TechTalks earlier this year:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Migrate-to-R80-20-TechTalk/m-p/22862" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Migrate-to-R80-20-TechTalk/m-p/22862&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Drill to the slides, specifically slides 66-70 are addressing that.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Before&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/597"&gt;@Timothy_Hall&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;can elaborate on your "any" object comment, I have to stress than rulebase order and us of specific objects in the policy has smaller significance with R80.x in comparison to R77.30, because of new rulebase lookup logic.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 09:52:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59931#M84589</guid>
      <dc:creator>_Val_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-09T09:52:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59943#M84590</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Avoiding the use of "Any" in the Destination column of rules is to help optimize the new R80.10+ &lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Management-Topics/Unified-Policy-Column-based-Rule-Matching/m-p/9888?search-action-id=7124191579&amp;amp;search-result-uid=9888" target="_self"&gt;Column-based Matching&lt;/A&gt; feature and reduce rulebase lookup overhead in the F2V path.&amp;nbsp; This recommendation applies for both ordered and inline layers.&amp;nbsp; Using literally anything other than "Any" will help, such as:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;A negation of a group object containing all your internal networks to represent the Internet&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Object "Internet" in APCL/URLF-enabled layers (but make sure firewall topology is completely and correctly defined)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Security Zone object&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Updatable or other Dynamic object&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;While avoiding "Any" will help in the Destination, Source and Service fields, the Destination column is checked first by Column-based matching thus the recommendation to focus on avoiding "Any" in that column.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:10:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59943#M84590</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-09T12:10:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59944#M84591</link>
      <description>hello,&lt;BR /&gt;thanks for help.&lt;BR /&gt;as i understood - any in source column is not a problem. only any in destination and service column?</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:13:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59944#M84591</guid>
      <dc:creator>Daniel_Hainich</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-09T12:13:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Inline Layer in R80.20 after Migration from R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59945#M84592</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;"Any" is not a real "problem" as far as functionality or security in any column of a policy layer, for performance optimization purposes though it can be helpful to avoid the use of "Any" primarily in the Destination column.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2019 12:19:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Inline-Layer-in-R80-20-after-Migration-from-R77-30/m-p/59945#M84592</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-08-09T12:19:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

