<?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: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30 in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74869#M15161</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Can you provide the output of fwaccel stat&lt;U&gt;s&lt;/U&gt; (without -s param)?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:51:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Daniel_Schlifka</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-11T22:51:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74868#M15160</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I cannot find the reason that our CP firewalls only accelerate 20% of our traffic. We run VSX, CoreXL is enabled. I have reviewed the Max Power V2 guide for tuning. I'm at a loss. Any ideas?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# fwaccel stat&lt;BR /&gt;Accelerator Status : on&lt;BR /&gt;Accept Templates : enabled&lt;BR /&gt;Drop Templates : disabled&lt;BR /&gt;NAT Templates : disabled by user&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Accelerator Features : Accounting, NAT, Cryptography, Routing,&lt;BR /&gt;HasClock, Templates, Synchronous, IdleDetection,&lt;BR /&gt;Sequencing, TcpStateDetect, AutoExpire,&lt;BR /&gt;DelayedNotif, TcpStateDetectV2, CPLS, McastRouting,&lt;BR /&gt;WireMode, DropTemplates, NatTemplates,&lt;BR /&gt;Streaming, MultiFW, AntiSpoofing, Nac,&lt;BR /&gt;ViolationStats, AsychronicNotif, ERDOS,&lt;BR /&gt;NAT64, GTPAcceleration, SCTPAcceleration,&lt;BR /&gt;McastRoutingV2&lt;BR /&gt;Cryptography Features : Tunnel, UDPEncapsulation, MD5, SHA1, NULL,&lt;BR /&gt;3DES, DES, CAST, CAST-40, AES-128, AES-256,&lt;BR /&gt;ESP, LinkSelection, DynamicVPN, NatTraversal,&lt;BR /&gt;EncRouting, AES-XCBC, SHA256&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# fwaccel stats -s&lt;BR /&gt;Accelerated conns/Total conns : 16327/71523 (22%)&lt;BR /&gt;Delayed conns/(Accelerated conns + PXL conns) : 602/68790 (0%)&lt;BR /&gt;Accelerated pkts/Total pkts : 63124135/190394161 (33%)&lt;BR /&gt;F2Fed pkts/Total pkts : 20142622/190394161 (10%)&lt;BR /&gt;PXL pkts/Total pkts : 107127404/190394161 (56%)&lt;BR /&gt;QXL pkts/Total pkts : 0/190394161 (0%)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# grep -c ^processor /proc/cpuinfo &amp;amp;&amp;amp; /sbin/cpuinfo&lt;BR /&gt;6&lt;BR /&gt;HyperThreading=disabled&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# vsenv 0&lt;BR /&gt;Context is set to Virtual Device PROD-B (ID 0).&lt;BR /&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:0]# fw ctl affinity -l -r&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 0: Sync Mgmt&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 1: eth1-04&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 2:&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 3:&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 4:&lt;BR /&gt;CPU 5:&lt;BR /&gt;All:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# netstat -ni&lt;BR /&gt;Kernel Interface table&lt;BR /&gt;Iface MTU Met RX-OK RX-ERR RX-DRP RX-OVR TX-OK TX-ERR TX-DRP TX-OVR Flg&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-04.9 1500 0 23492538 0 0 0 20331997 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-04.86 1500 0 2087760167 0 0 0 3853436307 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-04.95 1500 0 196787791 0 0 0 85395544 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-04.803 1500 0 156942065 0 0 0 162015933 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;eth1-04.825 1500 0 16917067 0 0 0 12161382 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;lo10 16436 0 159309633 0 0 0 159309633 0 0 0 LRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp640 1500 0 38286940 0 0 0 6429621 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp641 1600 0 11803588 0 0 0 42741043 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp642 1500 0 10795355 0 0 0 4582615 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp643 1500 0 16293750 0 0 0 21117665 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp644 1500 0 7055301 0 0 0 2288196 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp646 1500 0 5620843 0 0 0 2833859912 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp648 1500 0 1776562 0 0 0 2254472498 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp649 1500 0 7537011 0 0 0 4227601 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp650 1500 0 6117743 0 0 0 826096629 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp651 1500 0 7146004 0 0 0 3435033 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp652 1500 0 7692419 0 0 0 14455124 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp653 1500 0 7238752 0 0 0 3655612 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;BR /&gt;wrp654 1500 0 26167255 0 0 0 456417780 0 0 0 BMRU&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# fw ctl multik stat&lt;BR /&gt;ID | Active | CPU | Connections | Peak&lt;BR /&gt;----------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;0 | Yes | 2-5 | 25185 | 59889&lt;BR /&gt;1 | Yes | 2-5 | 15316 | 38149&lt;BR /&gt;2 | Yes | 2-5 | 15463 | 49210&lt;BR /&gt;3 | Yes | 2-5 | 17479 | 56844&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# cpstat os -f multi_cpu -o 1 -c 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Processors load&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;|CPU#|User Time(%)|System Time(%)|Idle Time(%)|Usage(%)|Run queue|Interrupts/sec|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;| 1| 8| 38| 54| 46| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 2| 8| 37| 55| 45| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 3| 20| 19| 61| 39| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 4| 23| 17| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 5| 20| 20| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 6| 20| 20| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Processors load&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;|CPU#|User Time(%)|System Time(%)|Idle Time(%)|Usage(%)|Run queue|Interrupts/sec|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;| 1| 8| 38| 54| 46| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 2| 8| 37| 55| 45| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 3| 20| 19| 61| 39| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 4| 23| 17| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 5| 20| 20| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;| 6| 20| 20| 60| 40| ?| 23016|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Processors load&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;|CPU#|User Time(%)|System Time(%)|Idle Time(%)|Usage(%)|Run queue|Interrupts/sec|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;| 1| 10| 38| 53| 47| ?| 73050|&lt;BR /&gt;| 2| 11| 41| 49| 51| ?| 73051|&lt;BR /&gt;| 3| 20| 23| 56| 44| ?| 73052|&lt;BR /&gt;| 4| 28| 23| 49| 51| ?| 73054|&lt;BR /&gt;| 5| 18| 27| 56| 44| ?| 73054|&lt;BR /&gt;| 6| 23| 25| 52| 48| ?| 146113|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Processors load&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;|CPU#|User Time(%)|System Time(%)|Idle Time(%)|Usage(%)|Run queue|Interrupts/sec|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;| 1| 10| 38| 53| 47| ?| 73050|&lt;BR /&gt;| 2| 11| 41| 49| 51| ?| 73051|&lt;BR /&gt;| 3| 20| 23| 56| 44| ?| 73052|&lt;BR /&gt;| 4| 28| 23| 49| 51| ?| 73054|&lt;BR /&gt;| 5| 18| 27| 56| 44| ?| 73054|&lt;BR /&gt;| 6| 23| 25| 52| 48| ?| 146113|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Processors load&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;|CPU#|User Time(%)|System Time(%)|Idle Time(%)|Usage(%)|Run queue|Interrupts/sec|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;| 1| 7| 36| 57| 43| ?| 74892|&lt;BR /&gt;| 2| 11| 41| 48| 52| ?| 74896|&lt;BR /&gt;| 3| 24| 24| 53| 47| ?| 149796|&lt;BR /&gt;| 4| 19| 22| 59| 41| ?| 149800|&lt;BR /&gt;| 5| 22| 26| 53| 47| ?| 74901|&lt;BR /&gt;| 6| 21| 28| 51| 49| ?| 74902|&lt;BR /&gt;---------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:37:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74868#M15160</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-11T22:37:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74869#M15161</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Can you provide the output of fwaccel stat&lt;U&gt;s&lt;/U&gt; (without -s param)?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:51:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74869#M15161</guid>
      <dc:creator>Daniel_Schlifka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-11T22:51:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74870#M15162</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Need to see output of &lt;STRONG&gt;enabled_blades&lt;/STRONG&gt; please, glad you liked Max Power V2.&amp;nbsp; 10% F2F is not horrible, and depending on what blades you have enabled, 54% PXL may not indicate a problem.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2020 22:57:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74870#M15162</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-11T22:57:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74990#M15184</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I love your book. A must-have for any Checkpoint Engineer.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the output.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# enabled_blades&lt;BR /&gt;fw vpn cvpn urlf appi identityServer&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:21:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74990#M15184</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T14:21:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74991#M15185</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;[Expert@PROD-B:10]# fwaccel stats&lt;BR /&gt;Name Value Name Value&lt;BR /&gt;-------------------- --------------- -------------------- ---------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Accelerated Path&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;accel packets 81556 accel bytes 45729320&lt;BR /&gt;conns created 6805 conns deleted 32&lt;BR /&gt;C total conns 7131 C templates 354&lt;BR /&gt;C TCP conns 5585 C delayed TCP conns 10&lt;BR /&gt;C non TCP conns 1546 C delayed nonTCP con 0&lt;BR /&gt;conns from templates 547 temporary conns 175&lt;BR /&gt;nat conns 4355 dropped packets 146&lt;BR /&gt;dropped bytes 20071 nat templates 0&lt;BR /&gt;port alloc templates 0 conns from nat tmpl 0&lt;BR /&gt;port alloc conns 0 conns auto expired 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Accelerated VPN Path&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;C crypt conns 421 enc bytes 14724672&lt;BR /&gt;dec bytes 2141520 ESP enc pkts 13827&lt;BR /&gt;ESP enc err 0 ESP dec pkts 11184&lt;BR /&gt;ESP dec err 0 ESP other err 0&lt;BR /&gt;AH enc pkts 0 AH enc err 0&lt;BR /&gt;AH dec pkts 0 AH dec err 0&lt;BR /&gt;AH other err 0 espudp enc pkts 0&lt;BR /&gt;espudp enc err 0 espudp dec pkts 0&lt;BR /&gt;espudp dec err 0 espudp other err 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Medium Path&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;PXL packets 169762 PXL async packets 158254&lt;BR /&gt;PXL bytes 118811908 C PXL conns 4898&lt;BR /&gt;C PXL templates 167 PXL FF conns 48&lt;BR /&gt;PXL FF packets 12019 PXL FF bytes 10610774&lt;BR /&gt;PXL FF acks 4589&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Accelerated QoS Path&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;QXL packets 0 QXL async packets 0&lt;BR /&gt;QXL bytes 0 C QXL conns 0&lt;BR /&gt;C QXL templates 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Firewall Path&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;F2F packets 35311 F2F bytes 20197052&lt;BR /&gt;C F2F conns 361 TCP violations 299&lt;BR /&gt;C partial conns 0 C anticipated conns 0&lt;BR /&gt;port alloc f2f 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;GTP&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;gtp tunnels created 0 gtp tunnels 0&lt;BR /&gt;gtp accel pkts 0 gtp f2f pkts 0&lt;BR /&gt;gtp spoofed pkts 0 gtp in gtp pkts 0&lt;BR /&gt;gtp signaling pkts 0 gtp tcpopt pkts 0&lt;BR /&gt;gtp apn err pkts 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;General&lt;BR /&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;BR /&gt;memory used 0 free memory 0&lt;BR /&gt;C used templates 161 pxl tmpl conns 368&lt;BR /&gt;C conns from tmpl 518 C non TCP F2F conns 134&lt;BR /&gt;C tcp handshake conn 298 C tcp established co 3703&lt;BR /&gt;C tcp closed conns 1584 C tcp f2f handshake 3&lt;BR /&gt;C tcp f2f establishe 192 C tcp f2f closed con 32&lt;BR /&gt;C tcp pxl handshake 269 C tcp pxl establishe 2519&lt;BR /&gt;C tcp pxl closed con 1316 outbound packets 81556&lt;BR /&gt;outbound pxl packets 169762 outbound f2f packets 37373&lt;BR /&gt;outbound bytes 47546675 outbound pxl bytes 121816875&lt;BR /&gt;outbound f2f bytes 22317085&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(*) Statistics marked with C refer to current value, others refer to total value&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:17:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74991#M15185</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T14:17:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74992#M15186</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Not seeing anything crazy bad in those outputs, it is APCL/URLF that is causing the traffic to be pulled into PXL which is expected.&amp;nbsp; What you need to do is optimize your APCL/URLF policy to ensure that only the Internet-bound traffic is subject to APCL/URLF inspection and therefore PXL.&amp;nbsp; For the R77.30 release specifically, check these things in your APCL/URLF policy:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1) Make sure that there is no APCL/URLF rule with "Any" in the Destination, you almost certainly should be using object Internet instead.&amp;nbsp; As mentioned in my book, this assumes that your firewall topology is completely and correctly defined, wouldn't hurt to double-check it.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2) Avoid using Any in the Source field of your APCL/URLF rules as well, you should almost certainly be using some kind of network object that represents all your internal networks instead.&amp;nbsp; Watch out for Access Role objects in the Source field that in their properties are set for "Any Networks" as these are not immediately obvious.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;3) If you have the default "Any Internet Any Recognized Allow Log" rule at the bottom of your APCL/URLF policy, it is not necessary and can be deleted since the action of the implied cleanup rule is Accept for a APCL/URLF policy.&amp;nbsp; Note that while doing so can substantially increase the amount of fully-accelerated traffic, it will eliminate logs for accepted applications previously matching this rule which will impact your Internet usage reporting.&amp;nbsp; Worth a try though at least for testing.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;4) If you've done all that and PXL is still unacceptable, try running &lt;STRONG&gt;fwaccel conns&lt;/STRONG&gt; and look for connections that have the "S" flag showing.&amp;nbsp; If they are connections from the inside to the Internet that is fine, but if you see connections between high-speed internal networks with S present you still have something wrong in your APCL/URLF policy.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Finally, remember that the PXL path is partially accelerated and not nearly as bad as the F2F path.&amp;nbsp; In R80.20 and later much more traffic can be fully-accelerated due to the big changes in SecureXL.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:40:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74992#M15186</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T14:40:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74995#M15188</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I ran through most of this. Very much appreciate the reinforcement. What do you think about whitelisting all traffic in our app/urlf if it matches destination port 443? HTTPS inspection is currently disabled. Will checkpoint try to inspect this traffic without inspection?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 14:55:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/74995#M15188</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T14:55:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75034#M15194</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Sounds like you may have done all you can do as far as optimization.&amp;nbsp; When you say whitelisting do you mean fast_accel:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A class="cp_link sc_ellipsis" href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk139772&amp;amp;partition=Advanced&amp;amp;product=SecureXL%22" target="_blank"&gt;sk139772: SecureXL Fast Accelerator (sim fastaccel) for Non Scalable Platforms R77.30/R80.10&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;There will be some inspection of the whitelisted traffic but it will be limited to what SecureXL can do, which is...limited.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:48:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75034#M15194</guid>
      <dc:creator>Timothy_Hall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T21:48:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75040#M15195</link>
      <description>URLF and APPI will definitely operate in PXL.&lt;BR /&gt;Perhaps you can optimize some of the traffic out of PXL by reordering or restructuring certain rules.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:56:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75040#M15195</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-12T22:56:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75591#M15332</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Whoa...learn something new every day. Thank you for this. It should provide a significant throughput increase.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:03:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75591#M15332</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-18T14:03:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SecureXL Accelerated path at 20% R77.30</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75592#M15333</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I've tested several methods. I think we are as optimized as we can be. I appreciate the feedback!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 2020 14:04:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/SecureXL-Accelerated-path-at-20-R77-30/m-p/75592#M15333</guid>
      <dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-18T14:04:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

