cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Create a Post
Highlighted
J_Saun
Nickel

Multiple scale sets in same policy

Jump to solution

We have a single management station and 1 scale set. We will be adding 1 additional scale set to our environment. This new scale set will have/need some similar rules as the primary scale set, but it will also require rules that are unique to itself (communication between vlan's that are behind the 2nd scale set). We will be adding a few more scale sets in the future.

My question is around the number of policies. I know we can add all the scale sets to the same policy and break things up into sections for the rules that are required on the different scale sets, but my understanding is you don't put the scale set(s) into the 'install on' column. So how is it determined which scale set gets which rules?

Also, if we use a single policy, how will we be able to view which rules are installed on which scale set?

0 Kudos
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Admin
Admin

Re: Multiple scale sets in same policy

Jump to solution
You can't use the Install On field in this case as scale up/down adds/removes objects and you won't be able to remove a gateway object if it's used in the policy anywhere.
Which means if you want to have different rules on different scale sets, a different policy package needs to be used.
If you want to have common rules between the scale sets, this could be achieved using shared layers (inline, ordered, or both).

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
1 Reply
Admin
Admin

Re: Multiple scale sets in same policy

Jump to solution
You can't use the Install On field in this case as scale up/down adds/removes objects and you won't be able to remove a gateway object if it's used in the policy anywhere.
Which means if you want to have different rules on different scale sets, a different policy package needs to be used.
If you want to have common rules between the scale sets, this could be achieved using shared layers (inline, ordered, or both).

View solution in original post

0 Kudos