<?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 for Maestro in Hyperscale Firewall (Maestro)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/94025#M272</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I think before the ISP redundancy is supported at R76SP.50 and we have document stating that.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:19:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>snowball14</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-08-13T13:19:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISP Redundancy for Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/93333#M268</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Guys:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just want to check if there are any plans on supporting ISP redundancy for maestro? As per checking on the latest &lt;SPAN&gt;sk147033&lt;/SPAN&gt;, said functionality still not supported.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thnks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2020 18:41:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/93333#M268</guid>
      <dc:creator>snowball14</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-04T18:41:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy for Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/93406#M269</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Out of interest why does ISP redundancy suit vs dynamic routing / routers in your scenario?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2020 11:34:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/93406#M269</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-05T11:34:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy for Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/94024#M271</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Chris:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Actually, I preferred to use dynamic routing. I know where you rooting at. Multi-path gateway can be achieve using dynamic routing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The reason why I'm asking this is because i'm working out a bid document for a customer. On the document states that the proposed firewall should have ISP redundancy functionality. We decided to place the maestro setup because the Threat protection throughput is a little bit high, around 40Gbps+. I just need a reference stating that our proposed solution supports ISP redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thnks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:14:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/94024#M271</guid>
      <dc:creator>snowball14</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-13T13:14:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISP Redundancy for Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/94025#M272</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I think before the ISP redundancy is supported at R76SP.50 and we have document stating that.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2020 13:19:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/ISP-Redundancy-for-Maestro/m-p/94025#M272</guid>
      <dc:creator>snowball14</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-08-13T13:19:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

