You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
With the current implementation of the Policy model it enforces unique names of the Policy assuming that a policy is identical across a corporation's network. In reality this isn't accurate to how network policies can potentially be deployed, where there is a common set of rules for a policy but additional rules based upon some external factor such as Location, Tenant, Platform, or Role. Based upon these external factors I believe we should remove the uniqueness constraint on Policy name and add connections to these external factor objects and base uniqueness on those combinations.
Use Case
We could have a Management Policy for Datacenter Tenant that contains allow tcp 192.168.10.0/24 while the Management Policy for Backbone Tenant would have an allow tcp 172.16.10.0/24. This would also allow a Management Policy for Palo Alto to include a rule for access from Panorama.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Environment
Proposed Functionality
With the current implementation of the Policy model it enforces unique names of the Policy assuming that a policy is identical across a corporation's network. In reality this isn't accurate to how network policies can potentially be deployed, where there is a common set of rules for a policy but additional rules based upon some external factor such as Location, Tenant, Platform, or Role. Based upon these external factors I believe we should remove the uniqueness constraint on Policy name and add connections to these external factor objects and base uniqueness on those combinations.
Use Case
We could have a Management Policy for Datacenter Tenant that contains
allow tcp 192.168.10.0/24
while the Management Policy for Backbone Tenant would have anallow tcp 172.16.10.0/24
. This would also allow a Management Policy for Palo Alto to include a rule for access from Panorama.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: