Feedback on potential enhancements

[scottikon]

I was reviewing the release notes of a competitor and some of the features seem really useful. A couple I wanted to mention are: -

• FQDN Support for Static Route Next Hop, PBF Next Hop, and BGP Peer
• FQDN refresh enhancement - ability to refresh cached entries based on the DNS TTL value

Just wanted to get the community's view on whether these would be as useful in real world and use Check Mates as a mechanism to feedback to Check Point. Put it on the wish list. 

[G_W_Albrecht]

There is a certain place for that: http://www.checkpoint.com/rfe/rfe.htm

What is the difference between sk90401 (All domain objects that are used in the policy are refreshed once in 30 seconds in R80.10, and once in 60 seconds in R80.20.) and the ability to refresh cached entries based on the DNS TTL value ?

[PhoneBoy]

A description of what these features do and what problems they solve would be useful.
And it's ok to mention the vendor that does it. 😉

Meanwhile, features like this might exist on a given vendor but might be subject to limitations that make them not useful.
Also, there might be a better way to achieve the same goal.
Which is why the "what problem does it solve" is very important in these discussions.

[scottikon]

This feature is on Palo Alto. I think if you are working with cloud services and you have multiple links. To be able to set static routes based on FQDN can prevent services being disrupted if the IP address of those services change.