Yep, that ClusterXL exactly the tickbox that changes the menu and both with and without having it ticked your failover mechanism can be VRRP. Now the question for me is whether the CXL tickbox choice will make any functional difference at all.
As stated in my initial post:
Initially I was suspicious whether VRRP without CXL would potentially not do session sync but testing this revealed that CCP packets are going across the sync link which seem to transfer the traffic tables between cluster members.
To explain the background of this whole post better, it's based on my customer's (I work at a reseller) question who used to have his old VRRP cluster with CXL ticked and now found that the cluster was migrated to a different CP object that had CXL unticked, so he asked me about which one is correct and whether there is any difference in functionality. There is no current issue, just headscratching on all sides.
So I did the following:
- created my R80.40 lab cluster as VRRP, played around somewhat
- then ticked CXL (but left the clustering mechanism as VRRP in the pane labled "ClusterXL and VRRP")
- disabled the CXL tickbox again,
- pushed policy
...only to find out that session sync STILL worked to my surprise (as verified with fw tab -t connections -u -f). I rebooted but it didn't change, session sync and the typical 8116/udp CCP packets were still happening on the sync link. Maybe I tainted my cluster by enabling CXL and disabling doesn't really work? If you agree that this is the only explanation why CCP packets are on the sync link even after disabling CXL, I'll be testing this again in 10days after some days off again with a fresh cluster that NEVER had CXL enabled (i.e. "3rd party configuration") to see whether it will already sync sessions, contrary to what I think is everybody's expectations unless there is any other suggestions.