- 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
Hi !
I'm trying to test some features of VSNext - Elastic.
I've followed the proc (Solved: VLAN trunk in vsnext - Check Point CheckMates) to use Vlans in the VS (attaching and detaching from VS0) but now I'm having an issue using VTI, and I didn't find any topics/docs about it.
Basically, I created a vpnt1 as VTI in VS0, and edited the VS context to move this VTI to it. The task was completed, but when I try to get topology for this object in SmartConsole, I cannot see the Virtual Tunnel Interface.
I'm attaching screenshots with the Interfaces tab and the get topology info of this VS context.
Does anyone have a way to make VTI work in VSNext?
Regards.
@Aniceto10 have a look at the VTI limitations..
VSNext / VSX supported features
| Blade / Feature | R82 VSNext |
R82 Traditional VSX |
R81.20 | R81.10 | R81 |
| VPN Site-to-Site - VTI - Numbered | Yes
After creating the VTI, you must reboot the Security Group (PMTR-119289) |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| VPN Site-to-Site - VTI - Unnumbered | No (PMTR-60112) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
Im fairly sure thats a limitation, specially if its unnumbered VTI, which seems it is in your case.
https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk79700
@Aniceto10 have a look at the VTI limitations..
VSNext / VSX supported features
| Blade / Feature | R82 VSNext |
R82 Traditional VSX |
R81.20 | R81.10 | R81 |
| VPN Site-to-Site - VTI - Numbered | Yes
After creating the VTI, you must reboot the Security Group (PMTR-119289) |
Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| VPN Site-to-Site - VTI - Unnumbered | No (PMTR-60112) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
No (by design) |
Thats exactly what I was looking at Wolfgang...seems one way to get around it is use numbered VTIs. I will say, though this is just my personal experience, unnumbered ones work way better for BGP / express route.
Excellent!
Im fairly sure thats a limitation, specially if its unnumbered VTI, which seems it is in your case.
https://support.checkpoint.com/results/sk/sk79700
Leaderboard
Epsum factorial non deposit quid pro quo hic escorol.
| User | Count |
|---|---|
| 24 | |
| 20 | |
| 9 | |
| 6 | |
| 5 | |
| 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