- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
Policy Insights and Policy Auditor in Action
19 November @ 5pm CET / 11am ET
Access Control and Threat Prevention Best Practices
Watch HereOverlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
Hello guys ,
I will described below the scenario and please advice if anyone else faced this issue.
involved: DNS server - 2 Clusters with 4 members (R80.20) - Nexus switch
DNS send the packet to 1st layer firewall with correct MAC address.
14:28:31.177248 XX:XX:XX:XX:e6:86 > XX:XX:XX:XX:96:b8, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 156: XX.XX.XX.70.domain > XX.XX.XX.65.10253: 1178 NXDomain 0/1/0 (114)
Then the 1st layer firewall received the packet correctly.
14:28:31.191342 XX:XX:XX:XX:e6:86 > XX:XX:XX:XX:96:b8, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 156:XX.XX.XX.70.domain > XX.XX.XX.65.10253: 1178 NXDomain 0/1/0 (114)
Afterwards the next packet translated to the below by the 4th member of the cluster.
14:28:31.191358 02:00:00:00:00:00 > XX:XX:XX:XX:90:64, ethertype IPv4 (0x0800), length 156: XX.XX.XX.70.domain > XX.XX.XX.65.10253: 1178 NXDomain 0/1/0 (114)
Notes:
1.Captures on DNS and switch shows that DNS never send those MAC address 02:00:00:00:00:00
2.All Packets that includes mac address 02:00:00:00:00:00 are outbound traffic from FW
3. CCP mode broadcast
4.Confirm from switch that this MAC is generated on FW
4. we cannot find and relate any errors on FW
Any advises are welcome!
Thank you
Dear All ,
After many hours of remote sessions please find below the solution:
We had implemented the ccl_preserve_src_MAC=1 This command changed the MAC address format to the old format (like R77.30).
After that the MAC moves of MAC address 0200.0000.0000 has been stopped and issue was resolved.
Thank you
@Geomix7 ,
can you please explain more detailed your environment.
You wrote something about a 4th member of the cluster, sounds like a cluster with 4 nodes. But at the beginning of your writing you wrote 2 clusters with 4 members.... Do you have 2 clusters and both with 2 nodes or anything else?
How about your ClusterXL mode. HA or LoadSharing, vmac ?
What is the problem?
Please be aware that sometimes sending and receiving MACs are different. It depends on the ClusterXL configuration.
Wolfgang
AFAIK, Check Point does not use port 10253 for any of the communications.
Dear All ,
After many hours of remote sessions please find below the solution:
We had implemented the ccl_preserve_src_MAC=1 This command changed the MAC address format to the old format (like R77.30).
After that the MAC moves of MAC address 0200.0000.0000 has been stopped and issue was resolved.
Thank you
I am seeing just about the same issue. I don't ever recall setting the ccl_preserve_src_MAC parameter. I have three clusters connected to the same vlan. Two were R80.40 with JHFA Take 48, one was R80.20 with JHFA 134. It was almost entirely DNS traffic that exhibited this behavior (there was a very small amount of Identity Awareness traffic). Based on support recommendation, I upgraded everything to R80.40 with JHFA Take 67. I still have the issue with the DNS traffic, but no longer with the IA traffic. sk168076 describes a similar issue to what I'm seeing. I am waiting to hear back from support.
Hello David ,
We had permanently solved this issue by setting the ccl_preserve_src_MAC parameter on one cluster to 1 and to the other cluster to 0.
I fixed this by:
1. Setting the parameter ccl_preserve_src_MAC to 1 on each cluster member
2. Found that this did stop the 02:00:00:00:00:00 mac address from appearing, but I had another issue, which was an unbelievable amount of DNS traffic bouncing between cluster members
3. On a whim, I did a cpstop/cpstart on the standby member. This stopped the DNS traffic. I failed over and did the same on the active member
4. I reverted the parameter ccl_preserve_src_MAC back to 0 on both members, and the mac address 02:00:00:00:00:00 did not come back
So a bit of a mystery to me, but my gateways are in a better place.
Dave
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 42 | |
| 19 | |
| 14 | |
| 11 | |
| 8 | |
| 8 | |
| 6 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 |
Wed 19 Nov 2025 @ 11:00 AM (EST)
TechTalk: Improve Your Security Posture with Threat Prevention and Policy InsightsThu 20 Nov 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Hacking LLM Applications: latest research and insights from our LLM pen testing projects - AMERThu 20 Nov 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CST)
Hacking LLM Applications: latest research and insights from our LLM pen testing projects - EMEAWed 19 Nov 2025 @ 11:00 AM (EST)
TechTalk: Improve Your Security Posture with Threat Prevention and Policy InsightsThu 20 Nov 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Hacking LLM Applications: latest research and insights from our LLM pen testing projects - AMERThu 20 Nov 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CST)
Hacking LLM Applications: latest research and insights from our LLM pen testing projects - EMEAWed 26 Nov 2025 @ 12:00 PM (COT)
Panama City: Risk Management a la Parrilla: ERM, TEM & Meat LunchAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY