<?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: ClusterXL VMAC question in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200221#M33418</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have a really large number of proxy ARP entries, sometimes the firewall doesn't flush them out consistently after failover or policy push. I have a firewall which hit this. Before enabling VMAC, a failover would take down traffic for 30+ minutes while adjacent devices relearned all the MACs. After enabling VMAC, there is no observed traffic impact from a failover.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:41:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-12-11T18:41:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ClusterXL VMAC question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200209#M33411</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is it fair to say that CLUSTERXL without VMAC is still more reliable/consistent that CLUSTERXL with VMAC?&lt;BR /&gt;I am interested in R80.40 and R81.10 especially.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I have experience with ClusterXL with/without VMAC and automatic NATs/proxyarp in R77.20 and I never had any issue and failover with both are seamlessly.&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I like VMAC mode in theory, however I have googled it a bit and I see a number of&amp;nbsp; issues in the past related with ClusterXL and VMAC for example:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Cisco conversational mac learning&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Cisco STP no edge/fast port&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;L2 routing like F5 auto last hop&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Proxyarp and automatic nat&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Hosts -&amp;gt; duplicated ips - 2macs (physical and virtual) for the same cluster ip&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;On the other side, I have never seen issues with GARPs and updating host ARP tables. VMAC may allow faster failovers but not substantially faster just microseconds.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;So that is why I am more inclined for no VMAC. Any thought on it?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;In case of using VMAC always with "SAME VMAC" option on, right?&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;fwha_alter_vmac_param&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:58:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200209#M33411</guid>
      <dc:creator>Luis_Miguel_Mig</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-12-11T16:58:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ClusterXL VMAC question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200216#M33415</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Im so glad you asked this question. Personally, I always find that with customers, this is really dependant on what kind of switch they use. I find anyone using Aruna switches does not have any problems, but Cisco on the other side can be a different story.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;All those things you listed are definitely true. CP version from what I had seen does not play significant role here.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 17:32:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200216#M33415</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-12-11T17:32:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ClusterXL VMAC question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200221#M33418</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you have a really large number of proxy ARP entries, sometimes the firewall doesn't flush them out consistently after failover or policy push. I have a firewall which hit this. Before enabling VMAC, a failover would take down traffic for 30+ minutes while adjacent devices relearned all the MACs. After enabling VMAC, there is no observed traffic impact from a failover.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:41:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200221#M33418</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-12-11T18:41:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ClusterXL VMAC question</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200223#M33420</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Excellent point, had customer few years ago with that issue.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Andy&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:51:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ClusterXL-VMAC-question/m-p/200223#M33420</guid>
      <dc:creator>the_rock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-12-11T18:51:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

