Heads Up :
The post you are writing will appear in a public forum. Please ensure all content is appropriate for public consumption. Review the employee guidelines for the community here.
Hi all,I’m testing Local DNS Service on MX and built a small Python CLI around the Dashboard API to create/modify/delete Local DNS profiles.When deleting a profile, I consistently get:400 {"errors":["Networks are currently assigned to the profile"]}T...
I completely agree with your points. The lack of rule ordering, limited default deny options, and no proper destination scoping make org-wide group policies hard to use in anything beyond the simplest designs. Your proposed improvements would make th...
Thanks for the quick reply!That’s exactly the endpoint I’ve been using GET /organizations/{organizationId}/appliance/dns/local/profiles/assignmentsand then attemptingPOST /organizations/{organizationId}/appliance/dns/local/profiles/assignments/bulkDe...
Your understanding is correct.If both MX WAN ports are on the same L2 from the ISP and the /29 is delivered on the wire, assigning VIP (.4) plus additional public IPs (.5, .6) works: VIP handles AutoVPN and Client VPN without interruption, while DNAT...
Short answer: Yes. You can use 1.1.1.5 and 1.1.1.6 for DNAT (1:1 or 1:Many) and they will fail over cleanly between the MXs as long as they’re on the same WAN segment as your VIP and your ISP/L3 upstream delivers that /29 on the wire.What this means ...
You’re correct!per IEEE 802.11, association status codes 27–31 are reserved and have no standard definition. Vendors can (and do) use them internally for their own reasons, which is why you won’t find a public explanation in the spec.In your case:Fai...
