cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Create a Post

Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

I work since few weeks on the virtualization of checkpoint security gateways. And to allow HA protocol (CCP) in order to create a clusterXL, I had to enabled the promiscuous mode on vmware.
So I was wondering if there was not another solution.
If not, is there some best pratices to avoid route causes on datacenters (packet loss for example) ?

0 Kudos
22 Replies
Admin
Admin

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

I'm not sure what you mean by "route causes."

In general, the CCP packets (which are Multicast by default) are there to determine reachability/availability of the cluster members on interfaces.

You can potentially switch ClusterXL mode to Broadcast mode: How to set ClusterXL Control Protocol (CCP) in Broadcast / Multicast mode in ClusterXL 

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Actually it may not be the right term. 

In order "to determine reachability/availability of the cluster members on interfaces", we must authorize the promiscuous mode on the vSwitch in VMware (both Broadcast and Multicast) 

And I have some packet loss in my datacenter due to this mode , so I search some best practices to avoid this mode or reduice its impact.

But I didn't find yet informations about this (in forum or in CP docs).

For information, we use vSphere 5.5.

Maybe you have another idea ?

0 Kudos
Admin
Admin

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Unfortunately, ClusterXL in its various forms requires multicast or broadcast packets, so this mode is required.

Its use is commensurate with the amount of traffic being passed by the cluster. 

Perhaps you can limit it's impact by reducing the number of devices directly connected to the same vSwitches as the vSEC instances.

As this sounds like a VMware issue, have you engaged with them at all?

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

You have perfectly right. It's indeed a VMware issue and it would seem that we must upgrade our vSphere plateform to version 6. 

With v6 we could use multicast without promiscuous mode but I would have liked to have Checkpoint confirmation that this is the best practice.

By the way thanks for your response. 

0 Kudos
Vladimir
Pearl

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

The packet loss you are referring to may be due to the broadcast control configured on physical switches your ESXi servers are connected to.

Please verify if there are any settings limiting broadcast set on the ports corresponding to NICs that have port groups and vSwitches assigned to the ClusterXL members. 

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Thank you, I will check this lead with the virtualization infrastructure team.

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Hello , Is there any way to avoid promiscuous mode with R80.20 or R80.30?

 

0 Kudos
Employee
Employee

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Why do you need promiscuous mode? Do you have VMAC enabled?

Also, CCP supports unicast mode of operation as of R80.30 (need to configure it).

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Hello I tried with R80.20, I configured unicast mode, but the sync lync still showing down, I read that promiscuos mode still mandatory to syncronize the cluster, if you have any material or configuration manuals will be great.

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Hello two gw with dvswitch , its configured as unicast, the sync interface remains down. This lab is with version r80.20 

cluster.jpg

 

Each interface has its own portgroup. 

0 Kudos
Vladimir
Pearl

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

@Pablo_Barriga , each interface or each pair of interfaces?

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Each network adapter has its own portgroup. 

interfaces.jpg

0 Kudos
Vladimir
Pearl

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

@Pablo_Barriga , what i am trying to determine if your Sync interfaces of both cluster member are sharing the same portgroup. They should.

0 Kudos
Highlighted

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Yes each gw share the same portgroup with their segments, we have IP connectivity with all the IP address of each interface connected, but the sync still down. I haven´t try VMAC enabled yet
0 Kudos
Vladimir
Pearl

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Are the vSECs on the same host or on two different hosts?

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Different hosts
0 Kudos
Vladimir
Pearl

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

I suggest v-motioning the vSECs to the same, verifying that it works and if it does, moving them back to separate hosts and looking at the portgroup/dvswitch/physical switch to see where its getting lost.

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Hello both gws are on the same host, but the cluster remains down, VMAC enabled.

chk-cluster2.png

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

I would involve TAC to resolve this...

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

Hello, they told me to activated promiscuous mode, thats quite complicated because its a vcloud infraestructure. I'm going to try to replicate the problem with other versions.

 

0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

I think you also need to check the port security settings, this has many times been the culprit for us.
Regards, Maarten
0 Kudos

Re: Can we avoid the promiscuous mode for vSEC clustering ?

So far everything is quite secure, looks like I'll have to use an ADC for load balacing

security-port.jpg

0 Kudos