- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
MVP 2026: Submissions
Are Now Open!
What's New in R82.10?
Watch NowOverlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
Hello, I need to ping from a monitoring server to our CP GW physical IP but when I checked the logs I found out that only the VIP is replying and NATed to the active GW member. When I try to ping the GW physical IP it does not work but pinging to standby members physical IP is working. Can anyone help me? Do I need to manipulate the table.def with no_hide_services_ports = { <0,1>}? Is it possible to do this change only for the monitoring servers IP address and why is standby IP not NATed?
It shows me XLATE Destination IP (IP from active GW member)
NAT Rule number 0
Dst Port 0
Src Port 0
If the standby uses the VIP, the traffic would have to be communicated through the primary (which owns the VIP).
The SK I referred to modifies the behavior for all traffic on the specific gateway, whereas I believe the table.def modifications are more focused to specific types of traffic and apply to all gateways.
However, if you manage gateways of different versions, table.def changes need to be made multiple places.
They also need to be made again on an upgrade.
What version/JHF is the gateways?
Did you also check: https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk34180
R81 JHF T92, yes I also saw this sk but where are the difference between editing table.def and this workaround? And why does the standby not using the VIP?
If the standby uses the VIP, the traffic would have to be communicated through the primary (which owns the VIP).
The SK I referred to modifies the behavior for all traffic on the specific gateway, whereas I believe the table.def modifications are more focused to specific types of traffic and apply to all gateways.
However, if you manage gateways of different versions, table.def changes need to be made multiple places.
They also need to be made again on an upgrade.
I also have a gut feeling sk Phoneboy gave is your best option, but you can verify with TAC if there might be better option.
Personally, I doubt it...
Andy
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 11 | |
| 9 | |
| 9 | |
| 8 | |
| 6 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 1 |
Tue 16 Dec 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Under the Hood: CloudGuard Network Security for Oracle Cloud - Config and Autoscaling!Thu 18 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Cloud Architect Series - Building a Hybrid Mesh Security Strategy across cloudsTue 16 Dec 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Under the Hood: CloudGuard Network Security for Oracle Cloud - Config and Autoscaling!Thu 18 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Cloud Architect Series - Building a Hybrid Mesh Security Strategy across cloudsAbout CheckMates
Learn Check Point
Advanced Learning
YOU DESERVE THE BEST SECURITY