Hi, Very interesting post! I’ve a question against the “firewall view” of your concept. In fact in case of failover what about the session? Do you have some kind of object and session sync between your firewall or all session are dropped due to stateful firewall? Sorry my english is really poor… Best regards, Vince
Hello Vince, in my example, the firewalls are not in a cluster (active/active or active/passive) so the session would be broken if you can put the firewalls next to each other and set them up in Active/Active or Active/Passive (which I prefer), sessions will get synced. With screenOS 6 and up, all routes will be synced as well
Hello Peter, Sound very interesting. I only know basic about screen OS. I need to do almost the same config than you but I can’t figure out how to enable sync link without using NSRP (thus the same Virtual IP for both FW). Is this an feature that allow FW in the same config than you to sync the session or I must enable NSRP to do this?
Hello Vince, Unfortunately I’m not aware of any options to force sessions to be synced without putting the FW’s in a cluster setup… On the other hand, if the firewalls are next to each other, if they are the same model and same screenos version, then it is really easy to set up a cluster…
Thus we can create a cluster when the FW aren’t on the same subnet? subnet A subnet C | | | | |FW 1| ——– sync link —-|FW2| | | | | subnet B subnet C A big thanks to your help, Vince
I don’t think that is possible – as far as I know, they need to be in the same subnet… furthermore, dynamic routing would also make take some time to update routes, so the sessions may break anyhow (in a multi-subnet configuration)