When will checkpoint support the Load Sharing mode in either R80.20 and R80.30?

[Sarm_Chanatip]

Dear Check Point Team,

Regarding the known issue with ClusterXL R80.20 and above does not support Load Sharing mode. Therefore, SmartConsole blocks such a configuration with a warning message.

I would like to know when it will be fixed and become to support like an R80.10.

Regards,

Sarm

[HeikoAnkenbrand]

It's been discussed here.

 I once copied a passage from @PhoneBoy answer:

CUT>>>

Load Sharing has a few limitations, see:

• ClusterXL Load Sharing mode limitations and important notes
• Security features do not work in Asymmetric Routing scenario (which can come up in a Load Sharing scenario)

The amount of sync traffic required for ClusterXL Load Sharing significantly limits its scalability, particularly as you get into 3 and 4 node clusters.

It also reduces overall cluster resiliency in the case where one member fails, particularly if you are utilizing the load sharing cluster at or near capacity.

Given the above, I usually advocate for buying right-sized appliances for an HA configuration versus buying smaller appliances using load sharing.

And, in fact, this is what the vast majority of our customers do.

Maestro solves a lot of these limitations and improves scalability dramatically over ClusterXL Load Sharing.

<<<CUT

I also think Maestro is the future technology.

[HeikoAnkenbrand]

It's been discussed here.

 I once copied a passage from @PhoneBoy answer:

CUT>>>

Load Sharing has a few limitations, see:

• ClusterXL Load Sharing mode limitations and important notes
• Security features do not work in Asymmetric Routing scenario (which can come up in a Load Sharing scenario)

The amount of sync traffic required for ClusterXL Load Sharing significantly limits its scalability, particularly as you get into 3 and 4 node clusters.

It also reduces overall cluster resiliency in the case where one member fails, particularly if you are utilizing the load sharing cluster at or near capacity.

Given the above, I usually advocate for buying right-sized appliances for an HA configuration versus buying smaller appliances using load sharing.

And, in fact, this is what the vast majority of our customers do.

Maestro solves a lot of these limitations and improves scalability dramatically over ClusterXL Load Sharing.

<<<CUT

I also think Maestro is the future technology.

[HeikoAnkenbrand]

Load Sharing has a few limitations, see:

• ClusterXL Load Sharing mode limitations and important notes
• Security features do not work in Asymmetric Routing scenario (which can come up in a Load Sharing scenario)

The amount of sync traffic required for ClusterXL Load Sharing significantly limits its scalability, particularly as you get into 3 and 4 node clusters.

It also reduces overall cluster resiliency in the case where one member fails, particularly if you are utilizing the load sharing cluster at or near capacity.

Given the above, I usually advocate for buying right-sized appliances for an HA configuration versus buying smaller appliances using load sharing.

And, in fact, this is what the vast majority of our customers do.

Maestro solves a lot of these limitations and improves scalability dramatically over ClusterXL Load Sharing.

<<<CUT

I also think Maestro is the future technology.

[Dorit_Dor · Accepted solution]

In r80.20 /.30 we introduced new limitation on load sharing with VPN (Due to maestro code main train unification, we took the maestro side and broken the main train side. Since the usage is low, it was the best tradeoff among the alternatives).

Due to the type of limitation, we decided to block the whole feature temporarily till we will make it clearer (so user can understand what is working). We are now in the process of enabling the large part of load sharing that does work, on r80.30. If you need this more urgently, contact our solution center to get assistance till we complete the publication of it (as its artificially blocked). 

Load sharing with vpn is still blocked (this requires development) and we will bring it back but in future release (most cases i saw that did use load sharing, didnt need the vpn aspect so the above should cover the vast majority). 

Dorit

[Sarm_Chanatip]

Hi @Dorti,

You mean the Load sharing with vpn is still blocking or as whole Load sharing configuration.

Thank you in advance.

[Dorit_Dor]

today: all load sharing is blocked except maestro

working to certify: enabling load sharing without vpn on R80.30 (can be done now if urgent contact us)

later after more development: load sharing with vpn 

[Sarm_Chanatip]

Hi Dorit,

Thank you for clarification.

However, can you estimate the time that the Load Sharing mode will be back in R80.20 and R80.30?

As I know if the customer wants to use this functionality they need to implement with R80.10, right?

[Dorit_Dor]

I am quite implicit above: if you need non-vpn load sharing, you can get it now over r80.30 if you can contact us or wait to get it published publicly 

If you need vpn load sharing, we still need to develop so it will be on later release

If you are not clear, i recommend you will work w our local sales to further understand 

[Sarm_Chanatip]

Hi Dorit,

I got it now. Thanks for clarification again.

[Sarm_Chanatip]

@Heiko

I link to the hyperlink you provided "It's been discussed here"
And found some comment from PhoneBoy, he said that checkpoint plan to bring it back later this year. Not sure if this true!

[Guy_Elyashiv]

Hi,

Please refer to sk162637 regarding the support of ClusterXL Load Sharing mode in R80.20 and above.

[Timothy_Hall]

Thanks for the new and informative SK, is there some reason that the lifting of the ClusterXL Load Sharing restriction is not shown in the "list of resolved issues" for the R80.20 and R80.30 Jumbo HFA takes?

[Dorit_Dor]

Technically, load sharing vpn is still limited, ... so in order to avoid mistakes and the ui is technically still blocked (unless you open it).

Therefore you need to read the sk to open the ui and the release notes direct you to the sk 

[An_Nguyen]

We have been waiting for a supported release that works with Cluster Load Sharing. 

This is a major reason while we are evaluating other Firewall Solutions. I have been told many times by support that load sharing is not a recommended solution.

[Dorit_Dor · Accepted solution]

Scroll up in this checkmates post and see response from the R&D leader from October. The solution is available already part of GA jumbo's and you can read all about it in sk162637

Version	Take
R80.20	Jumbo HF take 117 and above
R80.30 kernel 2.6.18/3.10	Jumbo HF take 76 and above

[An_Nguyen]

It still doesn't solve the problem because it supports ClusterXL Load Sharing WITHOUT Ipsec VPN.

[Dorit_Dor]

Indeed 

(1) Very small percentage used VPN w load sharing which is why we allowed this limitation in the first place 

(2) This part (the VPN w load sharing) required more complicated resolution vs the Maestro / scalable platform VPN. Therefore we gave priority to integrating the high end into the maintrain at the cost of not supporting load sharing w VPN in the short term

(3) We have a function called solution center that helps us resolve such missing pieces when they impact the business, by driving formal commitment to complete certain functionality by a certain date (they will deliver a formal commitment). Please leverage your local sales team or contact @PhoneBoy off line to get assistance 

[G_W_Albrecht]

As mentionend before, you currently can use either VSX VSLS or Maestro to overcome this limitation !

[PhoneBoy · Accepted solution]

As for support for Load Sharing + VPN, it is available in a customer release for R80.40.
Please engage your local Check Point office to obtain this release.
It's planned to include this functionality in a future release (after R81).