topic Re: Redundant tunnels with Wireguard Connector in SASE and Remote Access https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/244822#M1131 <P>Actually, it won't let me create another connector with the same address space behind it.</P> <P>What I had in mind was 1 connector with 2 tunnels to the gateways, reducing 2 points of failure to only 1. It seems it is not possible.</P> <P>Some customers don't want to change to IPSec because of costs and they find it complicated, but it is the right way to go.</P> <P>Anyway, thank you for your input. I just wanted to confirm.</P> Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:52:45 GMT Pedro_Espindola 2025-03-26T12:52:45Z Redundant tunnels with Wireguard Connector https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/243206#M1117 <P>If I have a SASE network with 2 gateways, is there any way to create redundant tunnels when using Wireguard Connector so that if one gateway becomes unavailable the other takes over or is that available only with IPSec?</P> Thu, 06 Mar 2025 23:34:40 GMT https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/243206#M1117 Pedro_Espindola 2025-03-06T23:34:40Z Re: Redundant tunnels with Wireguard Connector https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/244116#M1119 <P>My understanding is that you can install multiple Wireguard connectors for the same site/network, which would provide redundancy and scalability.</P> Tue, 18 Mar 2025 22:53:42 GMT https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/244116#M1119 PhoneBoy 2025-03-18T22:53:42Z Re: Redundant tunnels with Wireguard Connector https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/244822#M1131 <P>Actually, it won't let me create another connector with the same address space behind it.</P> <P>What I had in mind was 1 connector with 2 tunnels to the gateways, reducing 2 points of failure to only 1. It seems it is not possible.</P> <P>Some customers don't want to change to IPSec because of costs and they find it complicated, but it is the right way to go.</P> <P>Anyway, thank you for your input. I just wanted to confirm.</P> Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:52:45 GMT https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/SASE-and-Remote-Access/Redundant-tunnels-with-Wireguard-Connector/m-p/244822#M1131 Pedro_Espindola 2025-03-26T12:52:45Z