<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Help with Remote Access concentrator in Azure in Cloud Firewall</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/Help-with-Remote-Access-concentrator-in-Azure/m-p/251159#M5373</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd like to share a scenario and see if anyone has experienced something similar and what your experience was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I plan to deploy a Check Point cluster in Azure to act as a VPN concentrator for remote users. In the worst-case scenario, there will be around 2,000 concurrent users.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My concern is about the connection table. Due to a particularity of the environment, I can't configure routing within Azure to send packets originating from the &lt;EM&gt;Office Mode&lt;/EM&gt; network back to the Check Point, so I'll need to use &lt;EM&gt;Hide NAT&lt;/EM&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In Azure, I'm also unable to allocate additional IP addresses to the Check Point's back-end interface in order to create a NAT pool with multiple addresses. As a result, all 2,000 users will be sharing a single NAT IP. Could this cause the connection table to become overloaded?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 13:57:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Gustavo_Ferreir</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-12T13:57:21Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Help with Remote Access concentrator in Azure</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/Help-with-Remote-Access-concentrator-in-Azure/m-p/251159#M5373</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'd like to share a scenario and see if anyone has experienced something similar and what your experience was.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I plan to deploy a Check Point cluster in Azure to act as a VPN concentrator for remote users. In the worst-case scenario, there will be around 2,000 concurrent users.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My concern is about the connection table. Due to a particularity of the environment, I can't configure routing within Azure to send packets originating from the &lt;EM&gt;Office Mode&lt;/EM&gt; network back to the Check Point, so I'll need to use &lt;EM&gt;Hide NAT&lt;/EM&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In Azure, I'm also unable to allocate additional IP addresses to the Check Point's back-end interface in order to create a NAT pool with multiple addresses. As a result, all 2,000 users will be sharing a single NAT IP. Could this cause the connection table to become overloaded?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 13:57:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/Help-with-Remote-Access-concentrator-in-Azure/m-p/251159#M5373</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gustavo_Ferreir</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-12T13:57:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Help with Remote Access concentrator in Azure</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/Help-with-Remote-Access-concentrator-in-Azure/m-p/251176#M5374</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;There's a limit to the number of HIDE NAT connections to a single destination IP (50,000).&lt;BR /&gt;This is probably the limit you will hit before you exhaust the overall connection table.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 19:00:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Cloud-Firewall/Help-with-Remote-Access-concentrator-in-Azure/m-p/251176#M5374</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-12T19:00:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

