Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 6 subscribers
  • Views 3186 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested

v18 EAP2 New FQDN Groups not available to configure in firewall rule

Leon Friend2

In a network firewall rule, create a new FQDN destination (example.mytest.local) while configuring the FQDN create a new FQDN group mytest and save, returning to firewall rule.
Try to add the new FQDN Group mytest to the firewall rule as a destination and it won't be visible.
If you exit or save the firewall rule and open it back up, it will be available to add as a destination.

Parents
  • 0

    Hi folks,

    this is still an issue in EAP3 refresh IPv6 rules unable to select FQDN host group or host, the table does not appear.

    Ian

    XG115W - v20 GA - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v20 GA

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    rfcat_vk said:

    this is still an issue in EAP3 refresh IPv6 rules unable to select FQDN host group or host, the table does not appear.

    In 17.5 the IPv6 firewall rules do not allow you to select "FQDN host" or "FQDN host group".  I am not sure if this is by design or it is a bug, but either way it is not a v18 issue.

  • 0 in reply to Michael Dunn

    Hi Michael,

    while the issue might be missing in v17.5 does not mean it should not be added/fixed in v18. The lack of this feature is a security failing because you cannot setup the same restriction rules in IPv6 and you can in IP4.

    Ian

    XG115W - v20 GA - Home

    XG on VM 8 - v20 GA

    If a post solves your question please use the 'Verify Answer' button.

  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    rfcat_vk said:

    while the issue might be missing in v17.5 does not mean it should not be added/fixed in v18. The lack of this feature is a security failing because you cannot setup the same restriction rules in IPv6 and you can in IP4.

    Agreed, and it has been raised internally as a defect.  But we have to prioritize.  New defects from v18 are going to be higher priority than functionality that has been missing since v15.  You've raised a bunch of defects for things that don't work (thank you) and this missing feature.  Should our teams work on your feature before your bugs?  No.  Bugs first.

Reply
  • 0 in reply to rfcat_vk

    rfcat_vk said:

    while the issue might be missing in v17.5 does not mean it should not be added/fixed in v18. The lack of this feature is a security failing because you cannot setup the same restriction rules in IPv6 and you can in IP4.

    Agreed, and it has been raised internally as a defect.  But we have to prioritize.  New defects from v18 are going to be higher priority than functionality that has been missing since v15.  You've raised a bunch of defects for things that don't work (thank you) and this missing feature.  Should our teams work on your feature before your bugs?  No.  Bugs first.

Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML