Howdy,Perhaps you can shed some light on the following. We have two
Fortigate 300Ds (v6.2.3) in an Active-Passive HA cluster. Up to now,
only the Primary unit has had the "outside" interface (let's call it
WAN1) plugged in; we don't have a switch bet...
FAZ VM64 (VMware), version 6.0.2. Only the built-in "Super_User"
administrator profile group has access to reports. If I clone that
group, or if I create a new one, and confirm that all profile options
are set to "read/write", users of that new profi...
Howdy,I have several VDOMs, one of which we'll call "Outside." This
Outside VDOM is directly connected to the Internet, and is advertising a
/24 block to the ISP via BGP. From this IP block, everything's working
as it should: we have IPs from this ad...
In an Active-Active HA cluster, the failover would be at the route level
not the HA member level. In theory, accomplishing the original goal? In
an Active-Active HA cluster, in the config described in my previous post
(#12), would it not basically be...
Clean, a device that does not touch the public WAN directly. A dirty
device would straddle both private LAN and public WAN. If I have the
following, in an Active-Passive HA cluster:[ul]Primary WAN1 connected to
ISP1Primary WAN2 not connected to anyth...
Sorry, I figured that was a rhetorical question. There is a router on
the inside of the HA cluster. This device must stay "clean," and not be
directly connected to the public.
I ask that you take into account that I am not a decision maker. This
directive was bestowed upon me, and I'm trying to figure out a solution
within its confines. Any and all help is appreciated. I agree switches/a
switch upstream of the HA cluster i...
