My opinion:
Firewall Rule: should define how the firewall should behave when a rule is matched (until now no problem although I would have preferred a sharp cut with the past No-Linked NAT rules [My Opinion])
The DNAT wizard: needs a refinement: the option to specify any PAT (Port Address Translation) is missing!
Enterprise NAT is the thing I like the most.
It's nice that it can specify the outbound interface and its translate source: if I have 2 ISP, I can specify outbound interfaces and related IPs, but that setting doesn't apply if there's no SD-WAN rule that "repeats" what I want to achieve in the NAT rule (Linked SD-WAN rules??)
V17 -> v18 Migrations
Migrating a firewall from version 17 to version 18, I noticed that by default, SD-WAN rules are processed before routes.
In my opinion, this approach is dangerous as there may be firewall interfaces that connect to other corporate remote networks (where static routing lives for example).
SD-WAN rules, I would like to understand why I can't use also zones instead of specifying IP networks.
Traffc shaping: in traffic shaping, there is no possibility to define different policies depending on the flow of traffic (input interface - output interface)... Maybe tomorrow Sophos could pour/replicate in traffic shaping what was done with the Enterprise NAT....
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
