<?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 dual site with one MHO on each site ? in Hyperscale Firewall (Maestro)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149262#M916</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Is it supported to run dual site deployment with only one MHO and one appliance on each site ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2022 14:47:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-05-23T14:47:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Maestro dual site with one MHO on each site ?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149262#M916</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Is it supported to run dual site deployment with only one MHO and one appliance on each site ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2022 14:47:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149262#M916</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-05-23T14:47:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro dual site with</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149264#M917</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, it is.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have/had multiple customers using this.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Some because the are having one multiple security groups and one has only one member per site.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Others because they have integrated standard clusters in their Maestro deployment to support future demands.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2022 14:03:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149264#M917</guid>
      <dc:creator>Norbert_Bohusch</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-05-23T14:03:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro dual site with</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149269#M918</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This means, the appliance on site_A will be connected with both ports to the one MHO on site_A and&amp;nbsp;the appliance on site_B will be connected with both ports to the one MHO on site_B ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;MHOs are connected for site sync with only one or dual connection ?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 May 2022 14:36:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149269#M918</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-05-23T14:36:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro dual site with</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149282#M919</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Nearly correct.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Minimal setup would be:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;one downlink from MHO A to GW A&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;one downlink from MHO B to GW B&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;one site-sync from MHO A to B&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;For downlinks on one MHO there can only be redundancy if using quad 1G card (using port 1 and 3). Other ports (2 and 4) are reserved for a second MHO per site.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;For site-sync redundancy is possible just by adding other site-sync ports.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;see&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk158652" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://supportcenter.checkpoint.com/supportcenter/portal?eventSubmit_doGoviewsolutiondetails=&amp;amp;solutionid=sk158652&lt;/A&gt; for downlink configurations&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2022 05:28:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/149282#M919</guid>
      <dc:creator>Norbert_Bohusch</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-05-24T05:28:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Maestro dual site with one MHO on each site ?</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/151484#M978</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;it is possible, yet if customer is not planning growth (adding appliances or even MHOs) then he will not enjoy the benefits of unicast sync and switch redundancy within the same site.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;in other words this implementation is somehow similar to traditional cluster with 2 members (working in HA mode)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 14:18:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Hyperscale-Firewall-Maestro/Maestro-dual-site-with-one-MHO-on-each-site/m-p/151484#M978</guid>
      <dc:creator>kobil</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-06-22T14:18:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

