<?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: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro in Hyperscale Firewall (Maestro)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252943#M3530</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have 4 gateways in my security group and only 1 IP is needed. All 4 gateways have this interface with the same IP.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Because you change in gclish it will change it on ALL gateways in the security group. In smart console you have only 1 SMO (firewall object) that has one interface&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:40:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-07-10T12:40:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252928#M3525</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have currently the Route based VPN with the Numbered VTi. This is currently configured on a cluster and is configured using the Vip, Gw1 , Gw2 and the remote address for the formation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This works correctly and the resiliency between the Gw1 and Gw2 operates correctly upon fail over. ( The Bgp re-establishes when the partner member becomes active).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are now migrating to a Vs Maestro based deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The main question we have is as follows:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;a) Does the&amp;nbsp; configuration from gclish&amp;nbsp; follow the same format with a Vti x&amp;nbsp; on member 1&amp;nbsp; and then Vti x on member 2. Or does this configuration change?&amp;nbsp; We will have three members in the Vs cluster.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;b) Currently referencing (a) above&amp;nbsp; the configuration is specifically&amp;nbsp; performed on the two Cluster Members. How will this be completed on the Maestro.&amp;nbsp; ( the Cluster is a three member unit and they are not physically configured separately as we did in the standard two blade cluster)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;c) Having through the&amp;nbsp; Technical documents we have failed&amp;nbsp; to obtain any sample configuration/ scenarios.&amp;nbsp; For us this will be a migration from standard cluster VTi config to a Maestro based deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any information or details that anyone may have&amp;nbsp; regarding this would be most appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;JED&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:31:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252928#M3525</guid>
      <dc:creator>JED</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T10:31:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252929#M3526</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;When you configure a Maestro Security Group you consider it as a Single GW. This means that on the Physical interfaces you configure the VIP IP and not the members Physical IP addresses.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Same thing with VTI's. On the Security Group you configure the tunnels local IP address the Tunnel VIP you are using today.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 10:37:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252929#M3526</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nir_Shamir</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T10:37:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252936#M3527</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Here an config example of Maestro setup:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You do all changes in global clish!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;gclish:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;add vpn tunnel 1 type numbered local 1.1.1.2 remote 1.1.1.1 peer Name of the interoperable device from smart console&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Example of above:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;add vpn tunnel 1 type numbered local 1.1.1.2 remote 1.1.1.1 peer FW-Remote-Peer&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;set interface vpnt1 state on &lt;BR /&gt;set interface vpnt1 mtu 1500&lt;BR /&gt;set interface vpnt1 comments "VPN tunnel with remote party"&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;set static-route 172.16.0.0/24 nexthop gateway logical vpnt1 on&lt;BR /&gt;set static-route 172.16.0.0/24 comment "VPN tunnel with remote party"&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In Smart Console on the SMO object you have to get interface (Get interface without topology)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You only can fetch these type of interfaces not manually create them!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Configure VPN community with empty encryption domains and done.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 11:58:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252936#M3527</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T11:58:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252939#M3528</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;CLISH and GCLISH commands are the same.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;the difference is that when working with GCLISH&amp;nbsp; every command is configured on all SGM's at once because we need the configuration to be consistent on all of them.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;so in Maestro only work in GCLISH&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252939#M3528</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nir_Shamir</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T12:11:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252942#M3529</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Lesley,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks for the reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From what you have demonstrated&amp;nbsp; it is showing the single entry&amp;nbsp; for the&amp;nbsp; VTI&amp;nbsp; ( shown below)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;add vpn tunnel 1 type numbered local 1.1.1.2 remote 1.1.1.1 peer FW-Remote-Peer&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Therefore I am&amp;nbsp; assuming this&amp;nbsp; is all that is required : as opposed where we had a two blade cluster we would have had the following ( basing on your&amp;nbsp; example) , single VTI&amp;nbsp; config on each blade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Blade1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;add vpn tunnel 1 type numbered local 1.1.1.2 remote 1.1.1.1 peer FW-Remote-Peer&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Blade 2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;add vpn tunnel 1 type numbered local 1.1.1.3 remote 1.1.1.1 peer FW-Remote-Peer&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;All&amp;nbsp; I need is the confirmation that it would&amp;nbsp; only be the single&amp;nbsp; entry for the Operation on Maestro.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:28:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252942#M3529</guid>
      <dc:creator>JED</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T12:28:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Route Based VPN  with numbered Vti migration from Standard Cluster to Maestro</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252943#M3530</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have 4 gateways in my security group and only 1 IP is needed. All 4 gateways have this interface with the same IP.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Because you change in gclish it will change it on ALL gateways in the security group. In smart console you have only 1 SMO (firewall object) that has one interface&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2025 12:40:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Route-Based-VPN-with-numbered-Vti-migration-from-Standard/m-p/252943#M3530</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-07-10T12:40:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

