topic Re: comparision of ISP Redundancy features for R81 and R80.40. in Firewall and Security Management

comparision of ISP Redundancy features for R81 and R80.40.

Garrett_DirSec — Wed, 27 Jan 2021 21:45:24 GMT

Hello -- my apologies for ignorance.

Are there differences between ClusterXL ISP Redundancy between R81 and R80.40 in terms of architecture options and/or features supported?

Do they both provide same connectivity options for site-to-site connectivity -- and associated limitations -- with (a) another checkpoint gateway, and (b) 3rd party peer?

I've review the ClusterXL documentation for R81 ISP Redundancy HERE

and R80.40 ISP Redundancy HERE

Re: comparision of ISP Redundancy features for R81 and R80.40.

PhoneBoy — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 03:25:54 GMT

ISP Redundancy has been around for quite some time and hasn’t received any major functionality updates in a while.
I would expect both versions would be the same.
Most of the functionality we’re adding along these lines is being addressed through Policy-Based Routing, Dynamic Routing, and other similar features.
I believe those enhancements are planned for upcoming versions.

Re: comparision of ISP Redundancy features for R81 and R80.40.

Timothy_Hall — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 14:39:49 GMT

Looks exactly the same in the SmartConsole GUI, and I'm not seeing any mention of ISP Redundancy in any of the R81 Known Issues/Resolved Issues/Release Notes/Jumbo HFAs other than a limitation involving CGNAT. ISP Redundancy doesn't appear to have changed at all from version R80.40 to R81 that I can see.

Re: comparision of ISP Redundancy features for R81 and R80.40.

Garrett_DirSec — Thu, 28 Jan 2021 18:24:43 GMT

thanks @Timothy_Hall and @PhoneBoy for your insight. much appreciated!