CPUG: The Check Point User Group

Resources for the Check Point Community, by the Check Point Community.


First, I hope you're all well and staying safe.
Second, I want to give a "heads up" that you should see more activity here shortly, and maybe a few cosmetic changes.
I'll post more details to the "Announcements" forum soon, so be on the lookout. -E

 

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: QoS and CoreXL revisited

  1. #1
    Join Date
    2006-01-28
    Posts
    163
    Rep Power
    15

    Default QoS and CoreXL revisited

    We have a cluster of 12400s running R77.10 and 4200s in our remote locations (same R77.10).

    These firewalls have SecureXL and CoreXL running, and we're talking about implementing QoS.

    I came across this thread from 2013: https://www.cpug.org/forums/showthre...ght=qos+corexl

    I was hoping someone would share with me if they went ahead with the implementation and what the results are.

    I also the SK article 98229 on QoS and CoreXL. The 4th bullet says says QoS supports SecureXL and CoreXL but it's disabled by default. It also states that QoS policy should be set to Traditional Mode.
    Listen is an acronym for silent.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    2006-01-28
    Posts
    163
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Re: QoS and CoreXL revisited

    Thank you Eric for the response.
    Listen is an acronym for silent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    2014-09-02
    Posts
    360
    Rep Power
    10

    Default Re: QoS and CoreXL revisited

    You bet, buddy.

    For the benefit of others, amani had reached out to me directly as well. My response was pretty simple, and in line with what he posted here: The solution/support is there since R77.10.

    However, while I've played with it a bunch, my own exposure to QoS in the wild with clients has been limited, and I too am interested in hearing about the community's experiences. My feeling/hunch/guess is that the long-standing limitation and it's significant impact on performance had forced many to abandon Check Point's QoS, and they haven't gone back in any strong numbers.

    So...I'll re-ask amani's question: who out there is using QoS alongside SecureXL/ClusterXL, and do you have any notable thoughts on it, either good or bad?

    -E

  4. #4
    Join Date
    2009-04-30
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,252
    Rep Power
    15

    Default Re: QoS and CoreXL revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by EricAnderson View Post
    So...I'll re-ask amani's question: who out there is using QoS alongside SecureXL/ClusterXL, and do you have any notable thoughts on it, either good or bad?

    -E
    Not since pre-R70. The pre-R77.10 CoreXL incompatibility pretty much killed the QoS feature, which is now considered a part of the Advanced Networking Blade license. Also I'm pretty sure any traffic subject to QoS will go the Firewall (F2F) path and skip SecureXL and the Medium Path completely.
    --
    Third Edition of my "Max Power 2020" Firewall Book
    Now Available at http://www.maxpowerfirewalls.com

Similar Threads

  1. SecureXL vs CoreXL
    By avilT in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2013-03-07, 00:47
  2. Observations on CoreXL
    By lammbo in forum Check Point SecurePlatform (SPLAT)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 2010-11-08, 16:33
  3. CoreXL PDF
    By Maybedave in forum CCSA R70 Exam 156-215.70 (No Longer Offered)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2010-05-20, 21:21
  4. CoreXL Shakedown
    By alienbaby in forum Licensing
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2010-01-21, 17:49
  5. CoreXL and 2.6
    By belvdr in forum Installing And Upgrading
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2009-12-04, 08:22

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •