- 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
what is best practice to assign IPs to sync interface?
we are using rfc1918 IPs with /30 for sync interfaces. recently we discovered this problem. the IPs that we are using are also used on the network. when traffic to these destinations hits the firewall it promptly drops the packets due to the stealth rule and also the route is learned as connected. is there anyway we can exclude the sync interface from advertised? or do i need to re-ip all of my firewalls sync to use ip such as 127.0.0.0/30? thanks
C 192.168.80.0/30 is directly connected, eth3-01 Sync
See ClusterXL Administration Guide R80.20:
We recommend that you secure the synchronization interfaces using one of the following strategies:
• Use a dedicated synchronization network.
• Connecting the physical network interfaces of the Cluster Members directly using a cross-cable. In a cluster with three or more members, use a dedicated hub or switch.
Notes:
• See Supported Topologies for Synchronization Network (on page 26).
• You can synchronize members across a WAN. To do this, do the steps in Synchronizing Clusters on a WAN (on page 54).
• In ClusterXL, the synchronization network is supported on the lowest VLAN tag of a VLAN interface. For example, if three VLANs with tags 10, 20 and 30 are configured on interface eth1, only interface eth1.10 may be used for synchronization.
sorry if I wasn't clear with my question.
I want to know what is the best practice of IP assignment to the Sync interface. I am using 192.168.80.1 and 192.168.80.2 for the firewalls with /30 mask. this is a private range and I never thought it would cause a problem until I find out there is an actual system using the same IP. so when the packet arrived at the firewall, the firewall see the destination as directly connected. it drops the packet. from the firewall's route table perspective I never thought the crossover cable for the Sync interface would be advertised. but it is and it's a problem.
question is do I need to re-ip the sync interfaces? or my preference is how to stop the sync interface IPs being advertised?
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 14 | |
| 10 | |
| 9 | |
| 7 | |
| 6 | |
| 3 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 | |
| 2 |
Fri 12 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Check Mates Live Netherlands: #41 AI & Multi Context ProtocolTue 16 Dec 2025 @ 05:00 PM (CET)
Under the Hood: CloudGuard Network Security for Oracle Cloud - Config and Autoscaling!Fri 12 Dec 2025 @ 10:00 AM (CET)
Check Mates Live Netherlands: #41 AI & Multi Context ProtocolTue 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