- Products
- Learn
- Local User Groups
- Partners
- More
MVP 2026: Submissions
Are Now Open!
What's New in R82.10?
10 December @ 5pm CET / 11am ET
Announcing Quantum R82.10!
Learn MoreOverlap in Security Validation
Help us to understand your needs better
CheckMates Go:
Maestro Madness
I've been puzzling over this for several days now. I'm a Check Point partner, trying to bench a potential customer configuration. It just so happens that my home ISP configuration roughly mirrors this prospective customer, so I'm "doing it live" in a manner of speaking. The environment:
The customer requirement is seemingly simple: default all traffic to ISP-1, except for some number of internal subnets that will go through ISP-2. ISP Redundancy is optional. The customer has had this configuration in place on a Fortinet firewall for the past 6 years.
To accomplish this, I've done the following:
The problem I'm running into is with the subnet(s) configured to go out ISP-2. I get frequent disconnects (e.g., Zoom calls drop) and slow performance getting to websites. Running fw ctl zdebug + drop, I see no drops. What is odd is fw monitor and tcpdump. I am seeing traffic leave eth1 (ISP-1) but with the source address of eth2 (ISP-2). It looks like initial connections are attempted through eth1 with the eth2 address as NAT, and then eventually it kicks over to eth2. This is most easily seen when I make a call using my VOIP desk phone. Dozens of packets leave through the wrong ISP link immediately after dialing, and the phone doesn't connect the call until the connection switches to eth2.
This behavior is not consistent. For a while after setting automatic Hide NAT on the network object and installing policy, everything worked great. All of the erroneous traffic on eth1 disappeared. It returned about 24 hours later after installing policy again.
I've done this before for other customers, and it has worked properly. The difference here is that ISP-1 is dynamic, and I'm leaning toward that being the issue. Has anyone attempted to implement a similar configuration?
I recommend to open a service request with TAC to verify this behaviour.
I have recently upgraded from R80.40 to R81.20 and experiencing the same problem with the ISP Redundancy.
It's unsupported, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
So your config is sadly not supported. I know it works in R81.10 and R81.20, but not officially supported by CP.
Andy
https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk167135
Thanks Andy. The customer wound up making some changes to remove this requirement in their environment. I wonder if this will become more or less of an issue over time as business-class ISPs move away from providing static IP addressing to customers without additional cost.
Yea, I see what you are saying. Hard to tell, for sure, we will have to see.
Have a nice long weekend.
Andy
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 24 | |
| 20 | |
| 8 | |
| 7 | |
| 6 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 5 | |
| 4 | |
| 4 |
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