<?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 Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy in Spark Firewall (SMB)</title>
    <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212214#M10550</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I want to know it‘s supported running two 1900 appliances with&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- ClusterXL-HA&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- ISP redundancy (3 WAN, one them with PPPoE)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- centrally managed via onPremise SMS or Smart-1 cloud&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:59:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2024-04-24T16:59:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212214#M10550</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I want to know it‘s supported running two 1900 appliances with&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- ClusterXL-HA&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- ISP redundancy (3 WAN, one them with PPPoE)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- centrally managed via onPremise SMS or Smart-1 cloud&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 16:59:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212214#M10550</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T16:59:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212219#M10551</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Don't think so:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk177804" target="_blank"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk177804&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But this is GAIA embedded, maybe use 2 links for redundancy and dont use the PPPOE?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:14:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212219#M10551</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T19:14:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212220#M10552</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Modern versions of ISP Redundancy on Quantum Gateways support more than two ISPs.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:24:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212220#M10552</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T19:24:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212224#M10553</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Big gateways even 10 &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":winking_face:"&gt;😉&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;In versions&amp;nbsp;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;R81.10 and higher&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;, ISP Redundancy supports up to ten ISP Links&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;What about if it is a PPPOE link? Never seen that before in Redundancy&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:34:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212224#M10553</guid>
      <dc:creator>Lesley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T19:34:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212227#M10554</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;It should be supported on SMBs at least, which handle ISP Redundancy a little differently than regular gateways.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 19:52:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212227#M10554</guid>
      <dc:creator>PhoneBoy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T19:52:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cluster, PPPoE, ISP redundancy</title>
      <link>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212229#M10555</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, this is a known sk article and the other problem ClusterXL and PPPoE listed in&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk101747" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk101747&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;But I‘m talking about Sparc appliances, I think there are differences.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If PPPoE will be not supported with a cluster solution, Check Point can‘t be a solution for our customer. At the customers location ther‘s only one available internet provider. And they provide access via PPPoE only. The running Sophos gateway-cluster has no problem with this &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":disappointed_face:"&gt;😞&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 20:00:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.checkpoint.com/t5/Spark-Firewall-SMB/Cluster-PPPoE-ISP-redundancy/m-p/212229#M10555</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wolfgang</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2024-04-24T20:00:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

