topic Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30 in General Topics

CoreXL limitations on R80.30

Nick_Doropoulos — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:36:46 GMT

Can I just confirm that the existence of route-based VPN does not allow CoreXL to be used even on R80.30?

According to the CoreXL limitations as per sk61701 it would appear that that is the case but I wanted to double-check anyway.

Thanks.

Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30

G_W_Albrecht — Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:59:53 GMT

As i read in sk61701 CoreXL Known Limitations:

The following features/settings are not supported in CoreXL:

Check Point QoS (Quality of Service) ⁽¹⁾
'Traffic View' in SmartView Monitor ⁽²⁾(all other views are available)
Route-based VPN ⁽³⁾
IP Pool NAT ⁽⁴⁾
IPv6 ⁽⁵⁾

^....

^Notes:

Supported in R77.10 and above (refer to sk98229)
Supported in R75.30 and above
Supported in R77.20 with Take_169of R77.20 Jumbo Hotfix and with MultiCore VPN Hotfix (contact Check Point Solution Center)
Supported in R80.10 by default (due to integrated MultiCore VPN - sk118097)
Important Note:MultiCore VPN Hotfix is not available for R77.30
Supported in R75.40 and above (refer to sk76800and to sk105886)
Supported in R75.40 and above on Gaia/SecurePlatform/XOS only

---

So why the question at all ?

Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30

Timothy_Hall — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:02:47 GMT

CoreXL and route-based VPNs (VTIs) can be used together on an R80.10+ gateway. There were some special hotfixes in earlier releases that allowed this as well, but they were mainstreamed in R80.10.

Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30

Nick_Doropoulos — Sun, 15 Sep 2019 19:11:48 GMT

Thanks Tim,

That's quite interesting... Can similar special hotfixes be provided on R80.30? I don't know if somebody from the Check Point team could answer this.

Thanks.

Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30

FedericoMeiners — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 01:44:46 GMT

This limitation was removed in R80.10 with Multi-Core VPN

Here is sk118097

Regards,

Federico Meiners

Re: CoreXL limitations on R80.30

G_W_Albrecht — Mon, 16 Sep 2019 14:34:00 GMT

I did post that the limitation was resolved citing from the same sk already five days earlier...