TZ300, TZ205

Similar Questions

• From TZ170 to TZ300 configure specific IP SSH

  Hello

  TZ 170, it was very easy to configure a rule to allow SSH from a specific to our local network IP address. But I do not see the option to enter a specific IP address when you set up the rule on the new TZ300.

  Thank you

  Bob

  Bob,

  I guess you are running the standard firmware on the 170. The 300 run improved firmware and the rules are based on items in the address.

  You will need create objects for the IP addresses/IP address you want to allow.

  The following kb should help you.

  support.Software.Dell.com/.../sw4535

  Kevin

• Is it necessary to buy two packs of licenses to set up a cluster active / standby HA with two units of TZ300?

  I need a cluster active / standby and I think I will need to buy two devices and only CGSS. Am I wrong?
  Why there is no TZ300 HA Unit regarding the unity of TZ500 HA and TZ600 HA unit?

  Thank you

  Angelo

  Yes, you are going to have to buy two devices and licenses only to your main unit. The only reason why there are TZ500 and 600 HA units because generally these are units that especially customer implement an HA pair because of the power they have.

  A TZ300 and 400 are wanted over a smaller model of business that usually gives rise to not have an HA pair so their isn't a specific unit of HA.

  These HA units are not different from any other unit, they are simply locked as part of a wise pair HA license.

  Thank you
  Ben Davis
  Reference Dell SonicWALL
  #Iwork4Dell

• TZ300, name field of mail in the journal of automation server is too short

  Do not hold a domain name COMPLETE for the Office 365 server in there.

  Problem is resolved with hotfix 150314, please open a technical support case and apply this fix.

  Thank you
  Ben D
  Reference Dell SonicWALL
  #iwork4Dell

• ASA 5510 to Sonicwall TZ205 - ASA 9.1.6 upgrade breaks Tunnel VPN

  After reclassification of 8.4.5 to 9.1.6 my tunnel from site to site between an ASA 5510 and a Sonicwall TZ 205 is 'up' and I can ping the external interface of the other but I can't ping LAN to LAN.

  Hey Kevin,

  They should not be a difference on the config VPN between these versions, can you try to run a packet - trace on the SAA or place a screenshot inside while sending traffic.

  Example:

  entry Packet-trace within the icmp < src="" ip=""> 8 0

  Capture the vpn inside the match ip host host interface

  It may be useful

  -Randy-

• NetExtender stopped working for XP, VISTA, Server 2003 users after updating firmware for 5.9.1.1 - 39o

  Hello I've just updated a few weeks ago a TZ100W a TZ205 and an NSA-240 of 5.8.4.1 5.9.1.1 - 39o and after they have all the same problem all users with XP, VISTA, and WIndows Server 2003 stopped to connect to the Sonicwall NETextender using, I tried version 7.5.216 and 7.5.225 without success. I get the error: the server is not accessible. For users with windows 8, 8.1 and 10, it works fine. I tried searching on the internet but found nothing!

  If someone could help me I would be very happy!

  In debugging, I see is the following:

  10/2015/30 08:57:43, SvcMsg receive: 268, 1 = wParam, lParam = 1, content length = 75
  10/2015/30 08:57:43, SvcMsg receive: 270, wParam = 0, lParam = 0 content length = 44
  10/2015/30 08:57:43, NEGUI: 'Connect' was triggered from the UI.
  10/2015/30 08:57:43, SvcMsg receive: 320, wParam = 0, lParam = 0 content length = 75
  10/2015/30 08:57:44, NetExtender Core: Proc - 0x76C:Thr - 0xD38: send Http request failed with error 12029: a connection with the server could not be established

  10/2015/30 08:57:44, NetExtender Core: Proc - 0x76C:Thr - 0xD38: Server try UTM SSLVPN failed

  10/2015/30 08:57:44, NetExtender Core: Proc - 0x76C:Thr - 0xD38: Update: statCode = 0xA0318, stepData = 0

  10/2015/30 08:57:49, SvcMsg receive: 265, wParam = 2088927990, lParam = 1242208, content length = 0
  10/2015/30 08:57:55, SvcMsg receive: 283, wParam = 0, lParam = 4096, content length = 0

  Yes, section 5.9.1.1 work, even allow SSLv3 and TLSv1.

  You can try asking a 5.9.1.5 or high version of the support team.

• How to configure anti-spam to block addresses email not valid

  We receive a lot of spam that (fortunately screenshots of anti-spam) are directed to a non-existent user in our Organization. Is there a way to configure anti-spam to reject completely?

  I have a TZ205 with comprehensive services. firmware update

  Antispam on the firewall is no not no matter what filtering of recipients.

  Antispam on the firewall uses a Proxy connection and depends on the mail server to reject invalid recipient.

  The complete Email Security product rejects invalid recipients (Protection of DHA)

  The Hosted Email Security currently does not DHA Protection but it is added at a later date.

• Lost internet connection of TZ205W

  I have a new TZ205W firewall, updated when installing to (I think) the SonicOS latest version 5.9.1.0 - 22o. The WAN port is connected at the border FIOS.

  After several hours of working properly, it loses its internet connection. At that time:

  • I can access is no longer remote,.
  • They no longer ping the WAN port,
  • He cannot ping internet addresses, and
  • I can't access the internet from the local network.

  However, I can ping it and connect to the administration of the LAN interface. As soon as I have it reboot, I again have access to the internet from the local network and can ping/access it remotely. Once it's down, it never comes back to the top unless it is rebooted.

  I have already tried these things:

  • Restarted "Current Firmware with factory default settings", and then he reconfigured the wizard and stick to the simple minimum configuration (i.e. leaving out my VPN and most of my NAT policies); It is exactly as I do for my several other TZ205Ws who work in other networks, except for the intellectual property-specific information.
  • Re-uploaded the same version of firmware, and then reset to factory default settings and it reconfigured as above.
  • Called the ISP to see if there was any possibility of a problem MTU, a conflict known between their unit and SonicWall, or maybe they could see certain types of traffic from the router that could make in being blocked on their side. But all they can tell me is that they see no unusual activity and not responsible for my router, only them that sits on the other public IP address on the same circuit. My other router provided by the ISP to another public IP address (connected to the same switch on the WAN side) doesn't lose connectivity when the SonicWall; However, this port is still upward if I can replace the firewall prior non-SonicWall serving this LAN, I got the new SonicWall.

  At its connection to the Wan is down, I don't see anything different on the device, so I am at a loss even know what diagnosis of the measures to be taken. Are there specific parameters and/or log files that might be useful to diagnose the problem? Is it possible that there is a problem with SonicOS version am I using? Pourrait - this point to a hardware router problem?

  Finally... an answer. In short, it was a known problem with the Alcatel FIOS in border Ontario here's the recap:

  Business of my client was sitting there in this situation with the border router and a Netgear FVS318 works correctly for perhaps three years. Then one day, we get more sophisticated and need a reliable VPN. So I happily order two SonicWall TZ205 units, which replaces the old Netgear. The SonicWall at the other end (cable internet service) works fine, but to do this, the border gateway refused to communicate with him, after six hours. A restart of SonicWall has solved the problem, but she returned after six hours. When he is down, I can still communicate with the border router that is on the same network with the ONTARIO Frontier and my SonicWall switch. So I know my port WAN on the SonicWall is not the problem.

  I have reset the SonicWall to factory specifications, ask questions on the forum of SonicWall, even to swap this SonicWall with one at the other end. I opened a call at the border. My research points the finger at ARP, but one of the level 1 technicians gives me this message of network technology: "This is not how it works." It was perhaps in hour four of my forty-hour ordeal. I consider allowing the ARP open via the diags hidden from the SonicWall page but reject the possibility because of the stern warning that this is not safe. (Sigh... anyway could have save me several hours).

  No change in this. I dig, dig, dig. I have activate gratuitous ARP. Finally, I discovered, by chance, while tinkering with ARP on the SonicWall, that a cache ARP Flush on my SonicWall solves the problem immediately. Now, how can that be? I ask Frontier. "It is your own router," they say, 'if we do not support. " I ask, "If my monitor package reveals that my router sends packets to the IP address and MAC address of your gateway and your entry door does not, whose fault is that?" They say 'Yours'! "Of course," I think, "and if my router did not meet your entry door, it would also be my fault." But what I'm saying is, 'I have to switch to Comcast to be able to use an advanced router." "It's your choice," said the Tech level 1 (the regional director had no one to happy to hear about it when I finally made an autonomous escalation by calling the line of business of complaint).

  In the meantime, a filtered to ARP packets monitor reveals that when I clear the cache ARP of SonicWall, there is something gratuitous ARP does not: it sends an ARP request explicitly to the IP address of the gateway. And this proves with certainty that it is not only related to ARP, but this is a problem on the side of the border. Yet, I can't speak with an NT. They tell me that their door is not in ONTARIO (which goes far to get rid of the smell of the true cause later).

  This is a site that is half an hour from my office, so Meanwhile, I activated a second NIC on a server at the office, given that the two default gateways and RDP server enabled on both so that I can RDP in via the border at the NIC2 server router, and then connect to the SonicWall via its interface LAN of NIC1 of the server do this without yet another trip into the office.

  At the same time, users in the Office tire repeated outages and ignore my instructions to call me when there is a power outage and unplug, plug back the power of the SonicWall while I'm trying to troubleshoot it. And, of course, it's my fault because I went from routers. So I withdraw my cheap Netis switch, connecting three WAN devices and replace it with Netgear switch a little better (but still not managed).

  In the meantime, however, I now put in more than 30 hours between all the swapping & resetting devices, the many trips in the office and maybe eight or nine calls to Frontier - none that ever made me an escalation to level 2. And all the time, I was insisting that someone there has been the answer already and just needed this person to I can have the five-minute conversation required. That's not to mention buying a for my router SonicWall support contract and a few hours on the phone with the support of SonicWall. And I can't exactly charge my client for all this time, since, according to them, it was my choice to switch routers.

  Then, suddenly and without apparent reason, my monitor package starts list null source ARP requests ever two minutes - explicitly directed against each of the five usable on the WAN subnet IP addresses. And they come from a MAC address address of the gateway in my ARP cache is not. I find the manufacturer of this MAC and see who is Alcatel. It is a time key, but it doesn't mean anything to me at the time. Of course, my SonicWall blocks these and hack attempts. I connect to the border router and put in place a firewall in the journal rule, but don't see anything. I guess that's because their router must not be able to record the ARP packets.

  More important still, however, my connection is more crashes after six hours. She stay up all night for the first time in 10 days. But the fact that things started working and there is no indication that a change had been made gives me no confidence that the problem has been resolved. Finally, I call the corporate number of the border and ask for the line of the complaint. Things happen in action. I get a call back from the regional manager in an hour. We exchange emails; I have him send a detailed explanation of the problem. He promises to get in touch with a network architect.

  But it will take some time, and I'm starting to wonder if it was the change of Netis in WAN Netgear switch that actually corrected it (even if not it is meaningless), so that night I put the rear Netis in place. But, like a dummy, I also disable regular gratuitous ARP and restart my router - so make three changes at once and ensure that I will have no idea who we intervene if things are going to come back down). This morning... it back down again, as before. And again, when I have emptied my ARP cache, I'm up. So I sink into the site at the beginning and move the Netgear switch in place and reactivate gratuitous ARP.

  An hour later, I get a call from one of the level 2 NT who worked on my case (via chat with level 1) early in the process. She says: "I went back to the case and was digging down through the chat logs. As soon as I saw ARP, I knew what the problem was, and I made the required change. "She explained that the Alcatel HAVE an option that should be activated when there are multiple WAN devices. In addition, my client's business is in the only place in the area where Alcatel terminals are still in use. Now at least I have someone who knows something and addressed to me, despite the fact that I was mean enough to buy my own router. None of the level 1 technicians I have met previously could even understand why - much less how - there could be more than one public IP address. One of them had even said, ' now you are chaining your router through ours, right? Nope. And maybe it's time this process 20 now-40 hours.

  Well, I have yet a full explanation why things started working at the same time I started to see the ARP requests from null which are supposed to be the cause of misfortunes, but I guess there is something different about six o'clock - on-demand and what I see now. The tech called me had no explanation why replace the network switch would have broken things.

  But he works right now and come about six hours since the last connection, so I should know shortly. Now I have the promise of a follow up directly from the Frontier network engineer and, above all, Frontier agreed to do without the Alcatel HAVE to an Ontario Calix - with which they have never seen issues ARP.

  And finally, now I know to search for "Alcatel" and "ARP" together on Google - and found all the specific answers that identify the question to the ONTARIO Alcatel in combination with class routers business. Maybe now I can get back to all of my other clients whose projects have been waiting the last week and a half.

  I'm sure that my life expectancy is just down by a couple of years.