Hello, We trying to create bit complex policy interface mapping using
next condition: we have site "A" where is LAN defined as interface
"ABC"we have site "B" where is LAN defined as zone "DEF"we have site "C"
where is LAN defined as mix of multiple ...
Hello,we have LACP with two port on each of two nodes of A-A cluster
configured. I noticed that etherchannel haves different aggregator ID on
Fortigate and act as secondary aggregator also on Cisco (6509E). Each
node in FG Cluster configured with the...
Hi, We got for test hardware token model 300.Working great, but in
documentation written that they are "driverless".but if I put USB token
into PC which isn't connected to internet we got installation failed.
Can somebody suggest, what must we have t...
Hello, I have one problem, and I do not understand how to solve it:I
have to create one policy (IPv4) with application control. This policy
must be triggered by single application.For example: By this policy I
would like to control YouTube traffic. a...
Hi,I did the same migration year ago,Noting serious, just apply
configuration by small blocks over SSH/console. check and fix possible
errors. Of course, must be same firmware revision. After acceptance
checking you can do upgrade. Vladimir,Prague/Cz...
Hello,Anyone uses this build? Any problems detected? We are going to
upgrade from 5.2.9, seems to be few bugs fixed (like attributes in IPSEC
phase I, few other). Just need your opinion about latest build. PS: we
have number of fortigates with 5.2.8V...
Yes, latest client which recommended for 5.2.9, for 5.4.1, and latest
FortiClient - all of them had disconnecitons.After downgrade -
everything becomes to normal and stable.
Hello, Bad experience with 5.2.9 on 100D. Rapidly SSL VPN disconnection
(for some users no more 5-10 minutes without disconnection, for some
users disconnections once per hour).Was upgraded from 5.2.7.Downgrade to
5.2.8. Everything okay. SSL VPN tunn...
Hi, I tired to restart one port from LAG on slave and got positive
results - both ports are belongs to same aggregator ID. Looks like some
negotiation problem forced to split LAG into two different sub-LAG :)
Thanks. Vladimir. PS: I will do same with...
