Comments
-
Hello @JimAllenSW, Welcome to the SonicWall community. Since you SSH access to the firewall, you can run commands like 'diag show cpu' and 'show tech-support-report' and send those files to our Support team for further analysis. This definitely needs further investigation to find the root cause of the issue. Thanks!
-
Hello @Waldon, Welcome to the SonicWall community. If you have additional usable IPs on the WAN interface, you can use that to forward HTTPS traffic to your second web server. The procedure for port forwarding is the same. You just need to use the additional WAN IP as the original destination. Thanks!
-
Glad it all worked out! Have a good one 😀
-
@Flare, The services used in the port forwarding to the internal servers will work. This is with respect to the management traffic. Additionally, you can forward ICMP traffic, etc as well to the internal server. But, SonicWall itself will not respond to this traffic. If you have a web server and have port forwarding done…
-
Hello @BHO, These domains are related to the GRID network used by our email security devices for IP reputation checks. It would help if you can let us where you see these domains. Thanks!
-
Hello @Flare, Welcome to the SonicWall community. You have configured the port forwarding correctly, but since the secondary WAN subnet is associated with the primary WAN interface which is from the same ISP, please use the following KB to configure it. Thanks!
-
Hello @StuartBooth, Welcome to the SonicWall community. I could not find any such reported issues. While it is unreachable if you do a packet capture on the firewall for TCP 4433, what do you see? Are packets getting dropped, not reaching at all, or reaching but staying in consumed status? That will help further…
-
Hello @MarkCheng, You can achieve redundancy by using route-based VPN. The following KB explains the same. When using route-based VPN you can have two VPNs within the same location and use one over the other for redundancy using routes and their metric values. Please, let us know if you still have any queries. Thanks!
-
Hello @ParkerlauReadyspace, According to the Policy hierarchy, the user policy takes precedence over group policy. So, right now, are you seeing still traffic being allowed for that user? Thanks!
-
Yes, this is the right one. You can follow the steps given on this link. Thanks!
-
Hello @mrshahin, The NAT could be one to one or many to one but never one to many. In this case, if it is a WAN IP range, it becomes one to many. So, please choose one IP from that range that you can NAT the VoIP device to that IP while connecting to the internet. Thanks!
-
Yes, this definitely needs further investigation. Please reach out to our Support team. Thanks!
-
Perfect! Glad that things are working correctly now. Have a good one!
-
Hello @Chojin, The changes you have made are related to Core 0 as they affect the Control Plane. Core 2,3, and 4 are data cores and you may need to check what kind of traffic is passing through the firewall. If you have any monitoring tools like NSM or Analytics, you should be able to see that. The App flow monitor on the…
-
@ASHW, You can find the 6.5 section if you scroll down a bit. Since this is a route-based VPN, I am guessing the source of the route is set to Any and that includes the SSLVPN IP pool. On the AWS end, you would need to add routing for the SSLVPN IP pool as well as you have for your LAN network at the moment. Thank you!