Hi Peter,
You do NOT need to make any entries to the topology details of the cluster -
this ONLY contains real, physical IP addresses for real physical interfaces.
You must edit the CLUSTER MEMBER addresses for the two gateways in the cluster,
and change these addresses to be the 20.20.20.x
Thanks, however the cluster members are on the same 10.x so if I change these
then the topo is not correct, that is why I thought I'd create a dummy for the
cluster members interface 20.x.2 and 20.x.3 alternatively have the members on
a different interface?
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 08:19 BST
Hi,
I set up a new r75 smartcenter that I tested with lab r75 gateways
without any issue;
when I try to replace an r65 smartcenter with this one (config was
exported and imported), the smartcenter
complains about license on the module;
license is correct on the module (smartupdate and
Need to update to blade licensing. This is now enforced at R75.10 I believe.
Ted Serreyn
Serreyn Network Services, LLC
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:18 AM, pkc mls pkc_...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hi,
I set up a new r75 smartcenter that I tested with lab r75 gateways
without any issue;
when I try to
--- En date de : Jeu 23.6.11, t...@serreyn.com t...@serreyn.com a écrit :
De: t...@serreyn.com t...@serreyn.com
Objet: Re: [FW-1] cannot push policy from r75.10 smartcenter to r65 gateway
: invalid license
À: FW-1-MAILINGLIST@AMADEUS.US.CHECKPOINT.COM
Date: Jeudi 23 juin 2011, 14h55
Need
Hi,
Is there a config somewhere that redirects incoming http connections to the fw
to https, and prevents http port forwarding to an internal web server ?
fw and smartcenter run r75.10;
config worked fine on r65.
thanks.
Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.
It's a bug in R75/R75.10. No workaround yet. I have a case open. If you
disable visitor mode it will work as normal. Doesn't matter if it is
installed on only external interface, still redirects.
Ted
On 6/23/11 10:34 AM, n f pkc_...@yahoo.fr wrote:
Hi,
Is there a config somewhere that
I think you are waisting time on this problem...
you should stop doing NAT between SC and GW or create management
interface/network that is used by all GW's.
In case you are still going on NAT solutions - it should be static NAT
on firewall managed by the same SC
Dummy object - is problem too,
Ok guys thanks to all on their input
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 21:41 BST Alexey Baltacov wrote:
I think you are waisting time on this problem...
you should stop doing NAT between SC and GW or create management
interface/network that is used by all GW's.
In case you are still going on NAT solutions -
