<?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: Problem with Policy Based Routing in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106349#M8471</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for providing the information regarding the SKs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just clarifiy again: there is an external proxy between the Clients and WAN2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Clients -- Proxy_DMZ -- WAN2 (Interface eth3)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So connections originating from that proxy should use WAN2 and not the default path for internet traffic defined in the default routing table (WAN1 / Interface eth2).&lt;BR /&gt;"SomeServer_DMZ" is also there using WAN2, too (without the proxy in between):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;SomeServer_DMZ -- WAN2 (Interface eth3)&lt;/EM&gt; &amp;lt;-- this is currently active and working as far as I can see&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I need to send all internet facing connections from Proxy_DMZ and SomeServer_DMZ to WAN2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PBR summary:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;show pbr summary&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR Summary&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR has 2 tables&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR table SomeServer_DMZ (ID=1) has 1 route&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Default route, nexthop gateway&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;gateway 192.168.178.1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;preference 3&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR table Proxy (ID=2) has 1 route&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Default route, nexthop gateway&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;gateway 192.168.178.1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;preference 1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR has 1 rule&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR rule 3 from 192.168.160.111/32 table 1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;(rule for Proxy_DMZ removed because of the issues, but was configured like "PBR rule 3")&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;SK101562 states that one should use the original source address. You've pointed out that the described behavior is applicable till R80.10 so it must have been a problem in R77.30 too. The installed version is R80.20, so this limitation shouldn't be there anymore.&lt;BR /&gt;I don't get your point. May you please tell me more detailed what I can try?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I recommend them to update to R80.40, but they have to decide that. I think if I tell them that their setup is only working with R80.40 or R81 they would go for it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And another question arised reading the SKs for Policy Based Routing:&lt;BR /&gt;in SK100500 I've just read that a couple of features/blades are unsupported with PBR (URL Filtering, IPS and HTTPS Inspection etc.).&lt;BR /&gt;They were definitly using these three features with R77.30 along with PBR. So are these new limitations of R80.x?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 13:15:42 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>VolkerM</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-12-24T13:15:42Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106210#M8453</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello there,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm currently helping out a company and facing an issue with Policy Based Routing and/or possibly Threat Emulation.&lt;BR /&gt;I knew the configuration from about 2 years ago, when everything was on R77.30 and working without any problems.&lt;BR /&gt;About one year ago they migration from R77.30 to R80.20 and bought new firewall models.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After the migration they got trouble with Policy Based Routing.&lt;BR /&gt;They've got two internet uplinks. The primary/default link is a professional one with a professional router and static ip addresses.&lt;BR /&gt;There are using 5 static ips (released with the Proxy ARP feature). This professional uplink has a limited bandwidth and normally is&lt;BR /&gt;only used for different kind of server services and VPN.&lt;BR /&gt;The "client" internet connection is/should be released with the second uplink which has a non professional/consumer router with&lt;BR /&gt;dynamic ip addresses and a lot more bandwidth. There is a proxy (Squid) for these kind of connections.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't know what they changed or if anything related to this configration is unsupported in R80.20, but it is not working anymore.&lt;BR /&gt;They have trouble downloading larger files. The downloads start and at some point they simple go to 0 kbit/s and stay stalled.&lt;BR /&gt;I also recognized that the cluster, which is also using the proxy to download the latest threat prevention updates aso., is showing&lt;BR /&gt;a warning to check the internet connection.&lt;BR /&gt;I changed the Threat Emulation connection handling to background, but the issue is still there.&lt;BR /&gt;If I switch the translated source in the NAT rules to the first ISP everything is working fine again (which is the workaround since one year!).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe I missed something, but I'm a bit out of Checkpoint administrative practice.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The configuration is as follows:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;2 Gateways (Gaia / ClusterXL):&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;R80.20 Take 18 (GWs)&lt;BR /&gt;R80.20 Take 101 (Management)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Network objects:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;WAN2 = 192.168.178.100&lt;BR /&gt;Proxy_DMZ = 192.168.160.80&lt;BR /&gt;SomeServer_DMZ = 192.168.160.111&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Relevant interfaces:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Interface eth2 (first ISP - DEFAULT Route)&lt;BR /&gt;linked to another ISP router&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Interface eth3 (second ISP - specific hosts should use):&lt;BR /&gt;Virtual IP: 192.168.178.100/24&lt;BR /&gt;Member IP GW1: 192.168.178.101/24&lt;BR /&gt;Member IP GW2: 192.168.178.102/24&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Interface eth4 (DMZ Network):&lt;BR /&gt;Virtual IP: 192.168.160.250&lt;BR /&gt;Member IP GW1: 192.168.160.251&lt;BR /&gt;Member IP GW2: 192.168.160.252&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Policy Based Routing:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Action Tables:&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;Table / Destination / Next Hop / Gateway&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;SomeServer_DMZ / Default / Normal / 192.168.178.1&lt;BR /&gt;Proxy_DMZ / Default / Normal / 192.168.178.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Policy Rules:&lt;BR /&gt;--------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;Priority / Action / Source&lt;BR /&gt;--------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;1 / Table x: SomeServer_DMZ / 192.168.160.111/32&lt;BR /&gt;2 / Table y: Proxy_DMZ / 192.168.160.80/32&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;NAT:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-NAT Rules (Manual NAT):&lt;BR /&gt;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;Original Source / Original Destination / Translated Source / Translated Destination / Translated Services&lt;BR /&gt;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;SomeServer_DMZ / Internet / WAN2 / Orginal / Original&lt;BR /&gt;Proxy_DMZ / Internet / WAN2 / Original / Original&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Threat Emulation:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scope: Proxy_DMZ&lt;BR /&gt;Inspect incoming files from the following interfaces: External and DMZ&lt;BR /&gt;Connection handling: tested hold and background (hold was set)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Maybe anyone has an idea of what is going wrong here.&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks a lot and happy holidays! Stay safe and healthy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Volker&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Dec 2020 17:23:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106210#M8453</guid>
      <dc:creator>VolkerM</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-22T17:23:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106316#M8467</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;There’s a change in behavior from previous versions with respect to PBR routes that may be applicable here:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk101562&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=Security" target="_blank"&gt;https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk101562&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=Security&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You’ll note this only applies up to R80.10.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Also it might be better to upgrade to a later release than R80.20 as we’ve added more functionality to PBR.&lt;BR /&gt;See:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk167135&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=Security" target="_blank"&gt;https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk167135&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=Security&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:19:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106316#M8467</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-23T20:19:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106321#M8468</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Some great reading in sk167135, had no idea there was a "hidden" PBR feature that could match regular firewall policy rules and therefore apply PBR to specific applications, URL categories and users/groups.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 20:51:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106321#M8468</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-23T20:51:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106324#M8469</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Pretty sure we only tested it with Office 365 in particular but don’t see why it wouldn’t work for other apps as well.&lt;BR /&gt;Note that we are planning additional enhancements along these lines as well as removing some of the PBR-related limitations.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2020 21:09:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106324#M8469</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-23T21:09:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106349#M8471</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for providing the information regarding the SKs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just clarifiy again: there is an external proxy between the Clients and WAN2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Clients -- Proxy_DMZ -- WAN2 (Interface eth3)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So connections originating from that proxy should use WAN2 and not the default path for internet traffic defined in the default routing table (WAN1 / Interface eth2).&lt;BR /&gt;"SomeServer_DMZ" is also there using WAN2, too (without the proxy in between):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;SomeServer_DMZ -- WAN2 (Interface eth3)&lt;/EM&gt; &amp;lt;-- this is currently active and working as far as I can see&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I need to send all internet facing connections from Proxy_DMZ and SomeServer_DMZ to WAN2.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;PBR summary:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;show pbr summary&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR Summary&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR has 2 tables&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR table SomeServer_DMZ (ID=1) has 1 route&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Default route, nexthop gateway&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;gateway 192.168.178.1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;preference 3&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR table Proxy (ID=2) has 1 route&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;Default route, nexthop gateway&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;gateway 192.168.178.1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;preference 1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR has 1 rule&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;EM&gt;PBR rule 3 from 192.168.160.111/32 table 1&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;(rule for Proxy_DMZ removed because of the issues, but was configured like "PBR rule 3")&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;SK101562 states that one should use the original source address. You've pointed out that the described behavior is applicable till R80.10 so it must have been a problem in R77.30 too. The installed version is R80.20, so this limitation shouldn't be there anymore.&lt;BR /&gt;I don't get your point. May you please tell me more detailed what I can try?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I recommend them to update to R80.40, but they have to decide that. I think if I tell them that their setup is only working with R80.40 or R81 they would go for it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And another question arised reading the SKs for Policy Based Routing:&lt;BR /&gt;in SK100500 I've just read that a couple of features/blades are unsupported with PBR (URL Filtering, IPS and HTTPS Inspection etc.).&lt;BR /&gt;They were definitly using these three features with R77.30 along with PBR. So are these new limitations of R80.x?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 13:15:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106349#M8471</guid>
      <dc:creator>VolkerM</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-24T13:15:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Problem with Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106368#M8478</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It may have worked in R77.30 but don’t believe PBR was ever formally supported with those blades.&lt;BR /&gt;There were some very significant changes to SecureXL in R80.20 that would definitely impact PBR (thus the SK I mention).&lt;BR /&gt;Since you’ve anonymized your IP addresses, I don’t know precisely what IPs you’re using in your routes, which is why I thought this might apply.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;One thing that was added in R80.30 was the ability to use a default route for PBR routes (highly desirable for an Internet proxy, I would think).&lt;BR /&gt;Its achievable without this in R80.20 but it would require multiple routes to be defined.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think your best bet here would be a TAC case.&lt;BR /&gt;That said, my recommendation to use a later release than R80.20 for this still stands.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2020 19:12:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Problem-with-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/106368#M8478</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-12-24T19:12:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

