<?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 R81.10 and dual internet uplinks in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160824#M28388</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;currently running R81.10 JHF 66 on VSX platform.&amp;nbsp; One of the instances is an internet uplink.&amp;nbsp; So one internal interface, one public interface and acting as a gateway to INETA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Challenge : upgrade the internet uplink to INETB with as less downtime as possible&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need to new uplink to be on another interface as fibre requirement.&amp;nbsp; Catch : a block of public ip's is routed to the public ip of the interface leading to INETA.&amp;nbsp; I need some time to migrate these to public ip's of INETB.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to have two uplinks active?&amp;nbsp; And i don't mean isp redundancy.&amp;nbsp; One to INETA and one to INETB.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Default gateway will be to INETB.&amp;nbsp; This will cover internet access for internal users.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Access to the block of public ip's for INETA also needs to be active.&amp;nbsp; This is basically only for those specific devices.&amp;nbsp; This boils down to : there are two seperated nat translation tables needed for this to work.&amp;nbsp; Each tied to their respective INET interface.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Or perhaps one global nat translation table which also keeps record of which public interface trafic came in.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm not sure if this is possible.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A picture always says more ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" style="width: 850px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/18284iF283DA87AF7E8F4C/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" alt="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:27:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pnobels</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-10-31T13:27:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>R81.10 and dual internet uplinks</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160824#M28388</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;currently running R81.10 JHF 66 on VSX platform.&amp;nbsp; One of the instances is an internet uplink.&amp;nbsp; So one internal interface, one public interface and acting as a gateway to INETA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Challenge : upgrade the internet uplink to INETB with as less downtime as possible&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need to new uplink to be on another interface as fibre requirement.&amp;nbsp; Catch : a block of public ip's is routed to the public ip of the interface leading to INETA.&amp;nbsp; I need some time to migrate these to public ip's of INETB.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to have two uplinks active?&amp;nbsp; And i don't mean isp redundancy.&amp;nbsp; One to INETA and one to INETB.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Default gateway will be to INETB.&amp;nbsp; This will cover internet access for internal users.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Access to the block of public ip's for INETA also needs to be active.&amp;nbsp; This is basically only for those specific devices.&amp;nbsp; This boils down to : there are two seperated nat translation tables needed for this to work.&amp;nbsp; Each tied to their respective INET interface.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Or perhaps one global nat translation table which also keeps record of which public interface trafic came in.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm not sure if this is possible.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;A picture always says more ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" style="width: 850px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/18284iF283DA87AF7E8F4C/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" alt="2022-10-31_14h26_07.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:27:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160824#M28388</guid>
      <dc:creator>pnobels</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-31T13:27:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: R81.10 and dual internet uplinks</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160828#M28389</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, the main thing is making sure the routing is configured correctly.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;There is only a single NAT rulebase and it doesn't factor in the interface the traffic came in on.&lt;BR /&gt;SecureXL does track this, so it might work the way you want.&lt;BR /&gt;If it's at all possible to lab this up, I'd do it to validate this configuration works the way you'd expect.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:41:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160828#M28389</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-10-31T13:41:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: R81.10 and dual internet uplinks</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160879#M28397</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It would work ok except that reply packets from servers NAT'd to INETA IPs would go via INETB. Not necessarily a problem but if it causes issues could be resolved with some creative PBR.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 2022 01:05:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/R81-10-and-dual-internet-uplinks/m-p/160879#M28397</guid>
      <dc:creator>emmap</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-11-01T01:05:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

