<?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: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster. in Firewall and Security Management</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251911#M49332</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Exactly this question was asked in &lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Seeking-Guidance-on-Adding-9400-Appliance-to-Existing-15400-VSX/m-p/251789/highlight/true#M49281" target="_self"&gt;another post at around the same time you posted&lt;/A&gt;. Are you both posting about the same environment?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It's possible to do this, but the 15400s and the 9400 won't be able to sync. There will be a hard outage when you move traffic from the 15400s to the 9400.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As I described in the other thread, I would recommend using vsx_util change_interfaces to replace all uses of eth[whatever] with bonds. Then in the future, swapping hardware becomes much easier, since the only prep work you need to do on a new member is building the bonds. You'll still have to take the outage when moving between non-identical boxes, but it should be relatively quick.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:10:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-24T17:10:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251792#M49283</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My customer is currently running a Check Point 15400 cluster with VSX, and they are planning to add a new Check Point 9400 appliance to this cluster.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From my understanding, it is technically possible to add a different model to the cluster if we reduce the number of CPU cores on the 9400 to match the 15400, ensuring resource compatibility. However, I have some concerns regarding interface compatibility.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The existing 15400 appliances are using SFP+ port cards, while the new 9400 appliance only has the default 4 onboard ports (fiber). My question is:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If we want to integrate the 9400 into the current cluster, do we need to install a matching SFP+ port card on the 9400, so that VSX can properly recognize and sync the interfaces between members?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any clarification or experience regarding this type of mixed-model VSX cluster deployment would be highly appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BR,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2025 16:47:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251792#M49283</guid>
      <dc:creator>rozkie20</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-23T16:47:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251863#M49308</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would suggest to contact CP TAC for this question - your customer relies on having a supported deployment, so this is necessary !&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 11:21:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251863#M49308</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-24T11:21:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251871#M49316</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This is not a "supported" configuration the ClusterXL admin guide documents that the hardware &amp;amp; software should be aligned between members. I would also advise against reducing core counts in a VSX environment.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 12:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251871#M49316</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-24T12:06:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251878#M49321</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Also VSX Admin Guide tells us:&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;A &lt;SPAN class="mc-variable Vars_BladesFeatures.tp_vsx_cl variable"&gt;VSX Cluster&lt;/SPAN&gt; has two or more &lt;STRONG&gt;identical&lt;/STRONG&gt;, interconnected &lt;SPAN class="mc-variable Vars_BladesFeatures.tp_vsx_gws variable"&gt;VSX Gateways&lt;/SPAN&gt; for continuous data synchronization and transparent failover. (&lt;A href="https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.20/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.20_VSX_AdminGuide/Content/Topics-VSXG/VSX-Clusters.htm?tocpath=VSX%20Architecture%20and%20Concepts%7C_____8" target="_blank"&gt;https://sc1.checkpoint.com/documents/R81.20/WebAdminGuides/EN/CP_R81.20_VSX_AdminGuide/Content/Topics-VSXG/VSX-Clusters.htm?tocpath=VSX%20Architecture%20and%20Concepts%7C_____8&lt;/A&gt;)&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Identical means that SW &amp;amp; HW is the same...&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 13:01:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251878#M49321</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-24T13:01:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251900#M49329</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Traditional clustering (either with ClusterXL or VSX) requires all cluster members to have identical hardware.&lt;BR /&gt;You might be able to make it work with unlike hardware, but it is not supported.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Note that we are planning to add support for cluster members of different hardware types in ElasticXL (requires R82).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 15:24:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251900#M49329</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-24T15:24:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Hardware Compatibility for Adding a gateway to Existing VSX Cluster.</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251911#M49332</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Exactly this question was asked in &lt;A href="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Security-Gateways/Seeking-Guidance-on-Adding-9400-Appliance-to-Existing-15400-VSX/m-p/251789/highlight/true#M49281" target="_self"&gt;another post at around the same time you posted&lt;/A&gt;. Are you both posting about the same environment?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It's possible to do this, but the 15400s and the 9400 won't be able to sync. There will be a hard outage when you move traffic from the 15400s to the 9400.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As I described in the other thread, I would recommend using vsx_util change_interfaces to replace all uses of eth[whatever] with bonds. Then in the future, swapping hardware becomes much easier, since the only prep work you need to do on a new member is building the bonds. You'll still have to take the outage when moving between non-identical boxes, but it should be relatively quick.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2025 17:10:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Firewall-and-Security-Management/Hardware-Compatibility-for-Adding-a-gateway-to-Existing-VSX/m-p/251911#M49332</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-24T17:10:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

