<?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: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32530#M6823</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Too much limitations on network features. PBR is very important feature using dual ISP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But it doesn't support......&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:42:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Gomboragchaa</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-10-04T10:42:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32521#M6814</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm wondering if someone knows why ISP Redundancy &amp;amp; PBR are not compatible ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We did some tests and arrive at the conclusion that for unknown reason some traffic is at the end not sent to the correct gateway...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does someone know the reason why it's failing? I'm not asking a confirmation or RFE but just trying to understand the root cause...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside is there any plan to support both features at the same time?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nicolas&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 13:41:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32521#M6814</guid>
      <dc:creator>CP-NDA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T13:41:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32522#M6815</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;it is that you want to achieve?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="link-titled" href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk32225" title="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk32225"&gt;Configuring ISP Redundancy so that certain traffic uses specific ISP Link&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Last time I have checked isp redundancy and pbr were not supported togheter but not 100% sure on that maybe someone from check point could confirm or denied it&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 13:50:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32522#M6815</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marco_Valenti</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T13:50:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32523#M6816</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;No in fact we&amp;nbsp;are already using ISP redundancy to load-balance traffic on 2 ISP...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Beside we would like to force Guests traffic (specific IP source range) to another line... That's why we tried to combine ISP redundancy + PBR even if we were aware that both are not supported&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Today we are trying to understand why both feature are mutually exclusive&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 13:56:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32523#M6816</guid>
      <dc:creator>CP-NDA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T13:56:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32524#M6817</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;This limitation is stated clearly in &lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk100500&amp;amp;partition=General&amp;amp;product=Security" style="max-width: 840px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #0066cc;"&gt;sk100500: Policy-Based &lt;STRONG&gt;Routing&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #0066cc;"&gt; (PBR) on Gaia OS&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/A&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The following features/blades are &lt;EM&gt;not&lt;/EM&gt; supported with PBR:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;IPv6&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Locally-generated traffic&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Security Servers&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Data Loss Prevention (DLP) blade&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;VPN Domain Based&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;VPN Route Based&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Anti-Spam blade&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Mail Transfer Agent (MTA) (relevant for Threat Emulation/Threat Extraction/Data Loss Prevention/Anti-Spam blades)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #ff0000;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;ISP Redundancy&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The following applications (which use Check Point Active Streaming [CPAS]):&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;VoIP (H323, SIP, Skinny, etc.)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;HTTPS Inspection&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;HTTP Header Spoofing&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;HTTP Proxy&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;IMAP in IPS&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:11:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32524#M6817</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T14:11:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32525#M6818</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why both features are mutually exclusive is rather obvious to me - PBR routes traffic based on rules, ISP load sharing routes it based on the current load...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:14:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32525#M6818</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T14:14:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32526#M6819</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes that's really strange as we don't see any link between both features if we only focus our rules on Source IP address...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 14:24:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32526#M6819</guid>
      <dc:creator>CP-NDA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T14:24:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32527#M6820</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;basically is what is stated in the sk you can force a subnet to use a link &lt;IMG src="https://community.checkpoint.com/legacyfs/online/checkpoint/emoticons/grin.png" /&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2018 15:44:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32527#M6820</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marco_Valenti</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-03T15:44:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32528#M6821</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You have to understand that the two work at different levels: PBR is defined in OS (eg GAiA) as Advanced Routing, while ISP Redundancy / LS is handled by the FW blade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 07:27:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32528#M6821</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-04T07:27:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32529#M6822</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Günther, fully correct but still difficult to understand why it's even ISP or PBR...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For 2 independent subnets that shouldn't be a problem but I confirm it's not working...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have an open discussion with TAC and if a understable reason is received I will share it here&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 09:11:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32529#M6822</guid>
      <dc:creator>CP-NDA</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-04T09:11:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32530#M6823</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Too much limitations on network features. PBR is very important feature using dual ISP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But it doesn't support......&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 10:42:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32530#M6823</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gomboragchaa</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-04T10:42:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32531#M6824</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can always issue an RFE in &lt;A href="https://www.checkpoint.com/rfe/rfe.htm"&gt;Products and Feature Suggestions&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:28:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32531#M6824</guid>
      <dc:creator>G_W_Albrecht</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-04T11:28:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy &amp; Policy Based Routing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32532#M6825</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two ISP link and use PBR for separation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;First network&amp;nbsp;SRC: 192.168.100.x go to ISP1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Second&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;network&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;&amp;nbsp;SRC: 192.168.101.x go to ISP2&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I want that host in 101.x go to internet over ISP1 when ISP2 is broken.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;I set on PBR for ISP2 table two gateway (Fisrt gateway ISP2 with priority 1, second ISP1 with priority 2) but cant switch automatically.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I make this over PBR, or I must use ISP Redundancy , or combination PBR and Redundancy?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:46:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/ISP-Redundancy-Policy-Based-Routing/m-p/32532#M6825</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rade_Bebek</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-12-12T08:46:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

