- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Scaling Check Point Automation with Arodonata
7 October @ 5pm CET / 11am EDT
AI Security Masters
LGTM: Bypassing an LLM Build Gate
When Prompt Injection Fails
What's New in Check Point SASE
The State of Ransomware Q2 2026:
This Quarter's Trends, and Their Impact on Your Defenses
CheckMates Go:
Half is Not Enough
Hi, I have a question about Cluster XL error messages
An issue occurred in which the customer's firewall did not receive ccp packets normally
It was identified as a switch problem and normalized after changing the switch port.
But i have a question here
The message from the customer's firewall is 'CLUS-120207-2: LPRB PNOTE: local probing has started on interface eth1'
Can you tell me what the '-2' in 'CLUS-120207-2' represents here?
What I'm suspecting is 'local, remote', 'member1, member2'
I checked the cluster error message in 'sk125152', but unfortunately it doesn't show what I'm curious about.
If you know anything about the above, please let us know.
Thanks
Posting a general procedure for a ClusterXL hardware refresh (member-by-member) where the new appliances have more CPU cores / more CoreXL FW instances than the old ones and the counts cannot be matched.
Context: ClusterXL HA, same software version + JHF on both old and new members. Old members run a low number of CoreXL FW instances; new members have many more cores, and the minimum selectable CoreXL instance count is higher than the old members' — so matching them is impossible. Dynamic Balancing is ON on the new members.
Procedure (member-by-member, start with the Standby):
Expected behavior during the mixed phase (different instance counts):
Cutover for the first member (if the new one won't hold STANDBY due to mismatch):
Second member:
Watch-outs from the field:
Takeaway: a member-by-member ClusterXL hardware refresh to larger appliances is doable with minimal/near-zero downtime even when CoreXL instance counts can't be matched. The mixed phase is a brief degraded window (sync works for matching instance IDs, fewer→more failover preserves connections), and the mismatch self-resolves once both members are the new, larger model.
Thanks @emmap, @Bob_Zimmerman and @Timothy_Hall — your input matched exactly what we observed.
sk171844: How to troubleshoot the Critical Device "Local Probing" in ClusterXL
thank you for the reply
This issue is a case where troubleshooting has been completed.
What I want to know is what is '-2' in 'CLUS-12xxxx-2'
I recommend a TAC case here.
I think it would be better to proceed with the case according to your advice.
Thank you for your reply.
I had TAC case about that exact message while ago and thats what they told me it means, -2 for backup member and -1 would be current active.
Posting a general procedure for a ClusterXL hardware refresh (member-by-member) where the new appliances have more CPU cores / more CoreXL FW instances than the old ones and the counts cannot be matched.
Context: ClusterXL HA, same software version + JHF on both old and new members. Old members run a low number of CoreXL FW instances; new members have many more cores, and the minimum selectable CoreXL instance count is higher than the old members' — so matching them is impossible. Dynamic Balancing is ON on the new members.
Procedure (member-by-member, start with the Standby):
Expected behavior during the mixed phase (different instance counts):
Cutover for the first member (if the new one won't hold STANDBY due to mismatch):
Second member:
Watch-outs from the field:
Takeaway: a member-by-member ClusterXL hardware refresh to larger appliances is doable with minimal/near-zero downtime even when CoreXL instance counts can't be matched. The mixed phase is a brief degraded window (sync works for matching instance IDs, fewer→more failover preserves connections), and the mismatch self-resolves once both members are the new, larger model.
Thanks @emmap, @Bob_Zimmerman and @Timothy_Hall — your input matched exactly what we observed.
Note that the per-member interface name changes in step 3 aren't needed if you use bonds. Just ensure the bond exists on both members and ensure it has all the relevant subinterfaces, IPs, and so on. The firewall application doesn't care which interfaces make up the bond. Bonds can be made up of a single interface and they don't need to talk any special protocol, so they can be built to not require any special configuration on the switch side.
If you don't use bonds, an upgrade like this is a perfect time to switch.
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 34 | |
| 8 | |
| 6 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 | |
| 3 |
Thu 01 Oct 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point WAF | Preventing minus-zero-day attacksTue 06 Oct 2026 @ 12:00 PM (ACDT)
Rethinking Network Security for the AI Era : Session 2 - From User, to Branch and Campus APACTue 06 Oct 2026 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Rethinking Network Security for the AI Era : Session 2 - From User, to Branch and Campus EMEAThu 01 Oct 2026 @ 05:00 PM (CEST)
Under the Hood: Check Point WAF | Preventing minus-zero-day attacksTue 06 Oct 2026 @ 12:00 PM (ACDT)
Rethinking Network Security for the AI Era : Session 2 - From User, to Branch and Campus APACTue 06 Oct 2026 @ 03:00 PM (CEST)
Rethinking Network Security for the AI Era : Session 2 - From User, to Branch and Campus EMEATue 06 Oct 2026 @ 02:00 PM (EDT)
Rethinking Network Security for the AI Era : Session 2 - From User, to Branch and Campus AMERAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY