<?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 Re: Configuration Sync Across Gateways (Maestro Light) using 3rd party Packet Broker in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207764#M39338</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;This seems like a lot of effort for a topology which is unlikely to ever work very well.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You can use a ClusterXL cluster object for a cluster without state sync. Under the ClusterXL and VRRP section, uncheck Use State Synchronization. I &lt;EM&gt;think&lt;/EM&gt; High Availability &amp;gt; VRRP should make all cluster members effectively active, so they'll process whatever traffic is sent to them. You could use Active-Active clustering, but it has some topology concerns.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You might need to tweak the cluster monitoring config to get it to stop the members from trying to talk to each other on their clustered interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A multicast load sharing cluster is likely to work much better, and would actually be supported.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:23:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-03-04T17:23:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Configuration Sync Across Gateways (Maestro Light) using 3rd party Packet Broker</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207203#M39154</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello All -&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'm collecting data on various gateway architectures for customer for unique use case. &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;General Requirements:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;OL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Large outbound traffic.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;No need for state and session failover (ie. clusterXL)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Prefer full use of throughput for each gateway comprising "cluster".&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Potentially use more than 2x gateway devices for "cluster".&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Easy add/remove of devices (assume same make/model).&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/OL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It's unclear if customer needs cost and associated technical training for Maestro.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Customer does have existing relationship with Packet Broker vendor (example: &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Garland Technologies or Niagra Networks).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The packet broker device would operate like a much-simplified Maestro controller.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Questions:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;OL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Is there a way to treat N-number of CP gateway objects as ONE device for mgmt simplicity? &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Example: if we leverage ClusterXL and somehow turn OFF state and session sync, there is typically ONE layer2 MAC address owned by clusterXL service.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;I perceive we simply need to have N-number of separate CP gateway objects created -- all receiving same security policy.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; The "upstream" packet broker will be handling the inbound client connection, distribution to CP gateway, and persistence of connection based on various session properties.&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/OL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Any obvious problems with this approach?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Thanks -GA&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:43:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207203#M39154</guid>
      <dc:creator>Garrett_DirSec</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-02-26T17:43:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Configuration Sync Across Gateways (Maestro Light) using 3rd party Packet Broker</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207607#M39308</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;You may want to consider ElasticXL in R82, which gives you the single management object for up to 3 members.&lt;BR /&gt;Scalability numbers haven't been published yet.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Otherwise, you'll have to create N number of gateways and use a packet broker, as you've suggested.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 21:41:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207607#M39308</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-01T21:41:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Configuration Sync Across Gateways (Maestro Light) using 3rd party Packet Broker</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207610#M39309</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/7"&gt;@PhoneBoy&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;-- thanks for your insight.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;very much appreciated!!&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Yes -- Elastic XL looks super interesting.&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;Heiko has posted some very helpful information threads.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;posted here simply to benefit others ...&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R82-Install-ElasticXL-Cluster/m-p/206235#M34208" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;ElasticXL - Installation&amp;nbsp;&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/R82-ElasticXL/m-p/192459#M32247" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;ElasticXL - Overview&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 21:56:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207610#M39309</guid>
      <dc:creator>Garrett_DirSec</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-01T21:56:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Configuration Sync Across Gateways (Maestro Light) using 3rd party Packet Broker</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207764#M39338</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This seems like a lot of effort for a topology which is unlikely to ever work very well.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You can use a ClusterXL cluster object for a cluster without state sync. Under the ClusterXL and VRRP section, uncheck Use State Synchronization. I &lt;EM&gt;think&lt;/EM&gt; High Availability &amp;gt; VRRP should make all cluster members effectively active, so they'll process whatever traffic is sent to them. You could use Active-Active clustering, but it has some topology concerns.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You might need to tweak the cluster monitoring config to get it to stop the members from trying to talk to each other on their clustered interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;A multicast load sharing cluster is likely to work much better, and would actually be supported.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 17:23:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Configuration-Sync-Across-Gateways-Maestro-Light-using-3rd-party/m-p/207764#M39338</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-03-04T17:23:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

