<?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: Firewall split following VSX deployement in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Firewall-split-following-VSX-deployement/m-p/34547#M7262</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well I expect that is possible, but maybe your&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff;"&gt;service provider has valid reasons. Could you please describe your environment more? How looks topology now and what do you expect after the change?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:09:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Petr_Hantak</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-06-27T13:09:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firewall split following VSX deployement</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Firewall-split-following-VSX-deployement/m-p/34546#M7261</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;we have recently deployed a pair of checkpoint FW running VSX R76 and created 1 single VS firewall (basic migrating things as is).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We would like to split this existing single VS firewall into 2 VS firewalls. I thought it would be a simple change:&amp;nbsp; creating a new VS firewall, using the route propagation using a virtual switch, ... our service providers is trying to convince me "this cant be done": routing would not be possible, it woudl require significant downtime, and various physical intervention.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You guess I'm doubtfull ...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone went down the path of splitting its firewall on VSX ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;tx&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H5 class="" style="color: #333333; background-color: inherit; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; margin: 0.5cm 0px 0em; padding: 15px 0pt 1px;"&gt;&lt;/H5&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 10:24:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Firewall-split-following-VSX-deployement/m-p/34546#M7261</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sebastien_Barbe</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-27T10:24:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall split following VSX deployement</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Firewall-split-following-VSX-deployement/m-p/34547#M7262</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Well I expect that is possible, but maybe your&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN style="color: #333333; background-color: #ffffff;"&gt;service provider has valid reasons. Could you please describe your environment more? How looks topology now and what do you expect after the change?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:09:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/General-Topics/Firewall-split-following-VSX-deployement/m-p/34547#M7262</guid>
      <dc:creator>Petr_Hantak</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-27T13:09:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

