Hi,
forget about this. The configuration would be too difficult and I doubt
whether it is possible at all. Do full load balancing (load sharing).
Clustering is included in the IPSO already. If you want to have load sharing
take a look at cluster XL from Checkpoint.
If you really want to have the
Michael,
thanks for your input on this. I basically thought the same, but you
know customers. Actually we are not looking for clustering/loadsharing,
all they want is HA/Failover and then use the HA box for something else
while it is not in backup mode. I know... :-) Don't kill me, it's
them!
- Original Message -
From: Sascha Picchiantano [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [FW-1] conceptual question regarding HA
Michael,
thanks for your input on this. I basically thought the same, but you
know customers. Actually we
, 2004 6:50 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [FW-1] conceptual question regarding HA
Am I missing something.Everyone has been mentioning IPSO and Cluster
XL
in the same sentence, I thought that on an IPSO platform you used VRRP
for
HA and IP Clustering for LoadSharing and Cluster XL
Am I missing something.Everyone has been mentioning IPSO
No, you're not :-)
and Cluster XL
in the same sentence, I thought that on an IPSO platform you
used VRRP for
HA and IP Clustering for LoadSharing and Cluster XL was for HA and
LoadSharing on a NON IPSO platform like SPLAT or
I heard that load balancing (splat) has issues with SPI's to
non-checkpoint devices. I finally have my switches at the right IOS
level to accept the check point MAC addresses.
Anyone seen this and if so what products did this effect?
Douglas Sawyer
Security Analyst JR
248-489-5016
[EMAIL
Hi,
one of my customers finally wants to bring his setup up to a high
availability solution. Usually I'd say 'no problem', pop in the second
box, do the config waltz and be done with it. But this customer is
different. He wants to use the second box as a second firewall while it
is not backing up
