<?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 Question about port channel in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/273998#M45868</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Mates,&lt;BR /&gt;Hope you all doing well,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Does a failover occur if only one interface within the port channel is deactivated, or do all interfaces in the port channel need to be deactivated for the failover to take place?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:27:25 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>RemoteUser</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-03-23T17:27:25Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Question about port channel</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/273998#M45868</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Mates,&lt;BR /&gt;Hope you all doing well,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Does a failover occur if only one interface within the port channel is deactivated, or do all interfaces in the port channel need to be deactivated for the failover to take place?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:27:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/273998#M45868</guid>
      <dc:creator>RemoteUser</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-23T17:27:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about port channel</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274001#M45869</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;That's controlled with 'set bonding group #&amp;nbsp;min-links #' in clish. When fewer than that many members are up, the bond as a whole is marked down. For example, if you have a bond with four links, and you set it to 2, two of the members can be down without affecting the bond, but if a third member goes down, the whole bond goes down.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 17:47:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274001#M45869</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-23T17:47:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about port channel</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274007#M45871</link>
      <description>&lt;SECTION class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;amp;:has([data-writing-block])&amp;gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-(--header-height)" dir="auto" data-turn="user" data-scroll-anchor="false" data-testid="conversation-turn-127" data-turn-id="27f60445-0f46-4c54-9af0-4e3303764453"&gt;&lt;/SECTION&gt;
&lt;SECTION class="text-token-text-primary w-full focus:outline-none [--shadow-height:45px] has-data-writing-block:pointer-events-none has-data-writing-block:-mt-(--shadow-height) has-data-writing-block:pt-(--shadow-height) [&amp;amp;:has([data-writing-block])&amp;gt;*]:pointer-events-auto scroll-mt-[calc(var(--header-height)+min(200px,max(70px,20svh)))]" dir="auto" data-turn="assistant" data-scroll-anchor="true" data-testid="conversation-turn-128" data-turn-id="request-69aff2b5-e338-8330-a0cd-18e41cabfd20-4"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="text-base my-auto mx-auto pb-10 [--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-xs,calc(var(--spacing)*4))] @w-sm/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-sm,calc(var(--spacing)*6))] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-margin:var(--thread-content-margin-lg,calc(var(--spacing)*16))] px-(--thread-content-margin)"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="[--thread-content-max-width:40rem] @w-lg/main:[--thread-content-max-width:48rem] mx-auto max-w-(--thread-content-max-width) flex-1 group/turn-messages focus-visible:outline-hidden relative flex w-full min-w-0 flex-col agent-turn"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="flex max-w-full flex-col gap-4 grow"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="min-h-8 text-message relative flex w-full flex-col items-end gap-2 text-start break-words whitespace-normal outline-none keyboard-focused:focus-ring [.text-message+&amp;amp;]:mt-1" dir="auto" tabindex="0" data-turn-start-message="true" data-message-model-slug="gpt-5-3" data-message-id="474fe5fa-5a15-45a1-939c-8141bdff28bf" data-message-author-role="assistant"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="flex w-full flex-col gap-1 empty:hidden"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="markdown prose dark:prose-invert w-full wrap-break-word dark markdown-new-styling"&gt;
&lt;P data-end="7" data-start="0"&gt;Hi Bob,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P data-end="42" data-start="9"&gt;Just to clarify my understanding:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P data-end="223" data-start="44"&gt;In an HA deployment, if one interface within a bond on FW1 goes down, would this trigger a failover, or would the cluster remain active as long as the bond itself is still up?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P data-end="420" data-start="225"&gt;In my scenario, I’m considering having redundancy across the links (cross + direct connections), effectively treating them as part of the same logical connectivity rather than separate bonds.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P data-end="451" data-start="422"&gt;Please see the example below.&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="bond.png" style="width: 999px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/33825i98F826F19363C336/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="bond.png" alt="bond.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/SECTION&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 20:47:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274007#M45871</guid>
      <dc:creator>RemoteUser</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-23T20:47:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about port channel</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274008#M45872</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;By default, the bond only goes down if&amp;nbsp;&lt;EM&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;all&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/EM&gt; of the member interfaces are down. If you want the bond to go down when any member interface is down, set the bond's min-links accordingly.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2026 20:52:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Question-about-port-channel/m-p/274008#M45872</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bob_Zimmerman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-03-23T20:52:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

