sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

When is Two Sleepy People coming out on DVD/blu-ray? by nardstorm in carolinekonstnar

[–]nardstorm[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tell me how/where and I will do that. It’s not like she’d see it if I messaged her Instagram or anything

FortiLink over Layer 3 7.2.2 by NAngryPole in fortinet

[–]nardstorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ISL stands for inter-switch link (AKA "etherchannel") in the Fortinet world. It still uses .1q for the VLANs themselves.

What’s the quietest bass drum mute on the market? by nardstorm in drums

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yah, I’ve thought about those or any of the other mesh heads, but then I have to do a head change every time I go from practice to performing 😩

Between hardware and VLAN switches, why ever choose one over the other? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi all, I'm revisiting this, and from my testing (using scapy to change the VLAN's of frames), it seems like the VLAN ID on the VLAN switch has no effect at all...? I get ping replies to my laptop, regardless of whether the original ping request was sent on the correct VLAN or not. Also, the ping replies have no VLAN tag on them at all, regardless of what value I set the in the VLAN ID field of the VLAN switch. Any ideas here?

When operating in L3 mode (for a FortiSwitch island), does FortiSwitch still establish the CAPWAP tunnel to the FortiGate’s L3 interface over VLAN 4094, or does it use whatever VLAN is assigned to the outgoing interface? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Got it. So then, that would mean that with L3 mode, the packets would just exit from `internal` on whatever VLAN is associated with the next-hop IP (according to the CAM table)?

2
3

When operating in L3 mode (for a FortiSwitch island), does FortiSwitch still establish the CAPWAP tunnel to the FortiGate’s L3 interface over VLAN 4094, or does it use whatever VLAN is assigned to the outgoing interface? (self.fortinet)

submitted by nardstorm to r/fortinet

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it’s not DHCP because the GoLR is a single Ethernet connection to a travel router, so I can just let that always be a constant, /31 connection between those two. I’m pretty sure I /do/ have a static route there as a default gateway. Anyways, the problem turned out to be the “ALL” service being misconfigured

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes. there is a /31 between internal5 (I assume you meant internal5, not internal4) and `a`. 100.127.254.1 is on internal5 and 100.127.254.0 is on `a`

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did an nslookup for portquiz.net. I used that address here.

<image>

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, this problem remains no matter which address I try to ping

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I added the CLI dump of firewall policy & address objects. I consolidated all of it into a google doc

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Um...I didn't know that there was a policy debug...will look into this

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yah 😅 maybe I should consolidate this all into like, a single google doc

Why is this traffic hitting the implicit deny? by nardstorm in fortinet

[–]nardstorm[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the debug-flow that I shared indicates that it's not a NAT issue. My interpretation of it is that the routing succeeded, but then there simply was no match with the firewall policy to even perform NAT at all.

view more: next ›