<?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 Maestro redundancy testing in Hyperscale Firewall (Maestro)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115349#M461</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear team,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Device’s list:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;2 x MHO-140 R80.20SP&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;2 x SG7000 R80.30SP&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Customer wishes to test Maestro redundancy, diagrams are attached&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Downlink :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-01 (1/55/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-01) DC_GW01 (DAC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-01 (1/56/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-01) DC_GW02 (LC-LC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-02 (2/55/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-02) DC_GW01 (LC-LC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-02 (2/56/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-02) DC_GW02 (DAC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 1: Shutdown 1/56/1 and 2/55/1 =&amp;gt; Lost the security group and lost connectivity (lost ping)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 2: Shutdown 1/55/1 and 2/56/1 =&amp;gt; Lost the security group and lost connectivity (lost ping)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 3: Shutdown 1/55/1 or 1/56/1 =&amp;gt; MHO-01 detach&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 4: Shutdown 2/55/1 or 2/56/1 =&amp;gt; MHO-02 detach&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I get the result as above but it seems to be wrong.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As I understand MHOs are running Active/Active and we are in full mesh deployment, if 1 or 2 downlink go down, the other links should work properly and the Security Group should be up.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Might we have any explanation or document about Maestro redundancy?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you very much,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Binh&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 06:59:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>thaibinhn</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-04-06T06:59:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Maestro redundancy testing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115349#M461</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear team,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Device’s list:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;2 x MHO-140 R80.20SP&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;2 x SG7000 R80.30SP&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Customer wishes to test Maestro redundancy, diagrams are attached&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Downlink :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-01 (1/55/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-01) DC_GW01 (DAC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-01 (1/56/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-01) DC_GW02 (LC-LC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-02 (2/55/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-02) DC_GW01 (LC-LC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;MHO-02 (2/56/1) &amp;lt;=&amp;gt; (ethsBP2-02) DC_GW02 (DAC)&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 1: Shutdown 1/56/1 and 2/55/1 =&amp;gt; Lost the security group and lost connectivity (lost ping)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 2: Shutdown 1/55/1 and 2/56/1 =&amp;gt; Lost the security group and lost connectivity (lost ping)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 3: Shutdown 1/55/1 or 1/56/1 =&amp;gt; MHO-01 detach&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Case 4: Shutdown 2/55/1 or 2/56/1 =&amp;gt; MHO-02 detach&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I get the result as above but it seems to be wrong.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As I understand MHOs are running Active/Active and we are in full mesh deployment, if 1 or 2 downlink go down, the other links should work properly and the Security Group should be up.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Might we have any explanation or document about Maestro redundancy?&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you very much,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Binh&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 06:59:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115349#M461</guid>
      <dc:creator>thaibinhn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-04-06T06:59:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro redundancy testing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115357#M462</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Binh,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;For context can you please share the following additional information:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- VPC configuration&lt;BR /&gt;- Bond2 configuration&lt;BR /&gt;- R80.20SP JHF version used on the MHO-140&lt;BR /&gt;- R80.30SP JHF version used on the 7000&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 08:25:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115357#M462</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chris_Atkinson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-04-06T08:25:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro redundancy testing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115366#M463</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Dear Chris,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;vPC Configuration: LACP Active, with 4x40G physical links&lt;BR /&gt;Bond2: 802.3ad, with 4x40G physical links&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;MHO R80.20SP JHF 310&lt;BR /&gt;SGM R80.30SP JHF 47&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Binh.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2021 09:58:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/115366#M463</guid>
      <dc:creator>thaibinhn</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-04-06T09:58:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro redundancy testing</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/118479#M487</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;SGM need to have a connection to both MHOs in order for it to be considered UP. So if you have a single connection between each SGM and MHO and you cut one of them, the specific SGM will go DOWN. However, if you reboot the entire MHO, the connections are retained. Use dual-links between SGMs and MHOs if you want the SGM to stay up if one downlink is cut.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2021 05:46:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-redundancy-testing/m-p/118479#M487</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lari_Luoma</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-05-17T05:46:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

