<?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: dynamic SNAT in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250874#M41972</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey brother,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Were you able to figure this out?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2025 22:07:35 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-08T22:07:35Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250566#M41914</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi team,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I got an interesting task what I need to deploy.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I need to create a contitional NAT rule:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;If: "IP_A" is reacable, I have to use SNAT_A IP in the sourceNAT&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;If:&amp;nbsp;"IP_A" is &lt;EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;NOT&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/EM&gt; reacable, I have to use SNAT_B IF in the sourceNAT&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;This is not a trivilal ISP redundancy setup, don't mix it. Both traffic should use the same ETH interface when leaving the gateway.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I welcome all ideas.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Akos&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 11:00:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250566#M41914</guid>
      <dc:creator>AkosBakos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T11:00:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250597#M41919</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You could use a station which monitors IP A, and if not reachable, starts an automation using the Management API to change the NAT translated sourced in the NAT rule identified by UID. This change is reverted via another automation when IP A is reachable again.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:28:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250597#M41919</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex-</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T13:28:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250600#M41921</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Alex,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Sounds great, but a policy install will be necessary, right? I will think about it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Akos&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 13:33:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250600#M41921</guid>
      <dc:creator>AkosBakos</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T13:33:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250625#M41931</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes it would require a policy install. Alternately, you could always have the default NAT rule above your backup NAT rule, so that in case of reachability change you disable or enable the generally used NAT rule. Different object manipulation, depends on your policy setup.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;At least with the API, you have full audit of what happened when. Also it gives you verification options which could be trickier with a shenanigans-based approach.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 15:52:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250625#M41931</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex-</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T15:52:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250637#M41935</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I second &lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/10384"&gt;@Alex-&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;'s idea, just couple of notes:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1. If firewall from which you want to check IP_A is managed from the same management, you can use management to connect to firewall over SIC (&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk101047" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;cprid_util&lt;/A&gt;). If return value of ping is 0, IP_A is reachable, otherwise not reachable.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2. Create both NAT rules manually and save both NAT rule UIDs. One of NAT rule will be always disabled, second NAT rule will be always enabled. Depending if IP_A is reachable or not, first NAT rule with already known UID will be disabled, second NAT rule with already known UID will be enabled and vice versa.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;3. script will be run on management every XY minutes and do needed action once change is detected, including policy push.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 19:26:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250637#M41935</guid>
      <dc:creator>JozkoMrkvicka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T19:26:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250650#M41938</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Instead, try to use zone into nat rules&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 21:53:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250650#M41938</guid>
      <dc:creator>CheckPointerXL</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T21:53:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250654#M41939</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I agree with that 100%&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/54489"&gt;@CheckPointerXL&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 22:59:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250654#M41939</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T22:59:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: dynamic SNAT</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250874#M41972</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey brother,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Were you able to figure this out?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Jun 2025 22:07:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/dynamic-SNAT/m-p/250874#M41972</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-08T22:07:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

