Spanning tree perhaps, you did set the switch ports to 'portfast'
and check the duplex/speed settings ?
-Ville
Tom Sevy wrote:
>
> Found that the Virtual circuit in question has (eth-s1p3c0 on both IP440's)
> are going into redundant Catalyst 3548 switches.
>
> So from FW#1, this interface goes to Port 1 on the first switch
> and on FW#2, this interface goes to Port 1 on the second switch
>
> Switches are connected with Gigabit uplinks. It doesn't appear that FW#2 is
> seeing the advertisements from FW#1.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hermit1 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 1:30 PM
> To: Tom Sevy; Check Point FW List (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [FW1] VRRP problem
>
> Check that the interface in backup state on the first FW is monitoring the
> correct interfaces. Took me two hours to find this one when it happened to
> me - it was eth-s1p2 instead of eth-s1p3 in a long list of monitored
> interfaces.
> Check that the priorities are all correct.
>
> hermit1
>
> At 12:28 PM 7/3/00 -0400, Tom Sevy wrote:
>
> >Two IP440's, VRRP running.
> >
> >Two quad eth cards in each.
> >
> >5 interfaces active, paired monitered circuits including VRRP circuit.
> >
> >If both IP440's are up & running, 4 interfaces on first FW are in master
> >state, one in backup, and opposite on 2nd FW.
> >
> >Any suggestions?
>
> ================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
> http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
> ================================================================================
================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please see the instructions at
http://www.checkpoint.com/services/mailing.html
================================================================================
