<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Firewall sessions in Next-Generation Firewall Discussions</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/firewall-sessions/m-p/1245333#M6590</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1383433371"&gt;@wasan.altalhouni&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It sounds like the vendor is trying to sell 'Aggregate Session Limits' by load-balancing across two boxes ? While you can technically spread the load, you aren't 'adding' the capacity of the hardware. You are just splitting the risk. If a single session exceeds the limit of one box, or if one box fails, the whole 'added' math falls apart because the session state can't be seamlessly shared at that scale.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You should size firewalls based on the single-appliance limit and should avoid&amp;nbsp;playing "math games" with HA pairs because security is about reliability. If you need 200k sessions, you buy a box rated for 200k sessions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Think about what happens during a failover&amp;nbsp;— If they are truly 'combining' sessions to reach a higher number, what happens to the traffic when one firewall needs a reboot or a cable gets pulled? The risk is that one firewall can't handle the load of both and there's a risk that the network goes down.&amp;nbsp; At that point they've bought a single point of failure split into two boxes.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:10:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>kiwi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2026-01-12T09:10:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firewall sessions</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/firewall-sessions/m-p/1245321#M6587</link>
      <description>&lt;LI-SPOILER&gt;&lt;FONT size="4"&gt;I'm in a competition against a vendor who is claiming that two small firewalls sessions (not bandwidth ) can be added to give higher number of sessions and the customer seems to be buying it, although the.firewall doesn't work that way as its a statedul device and sessions can't be added to maximise the number of sessions I've seen in in the Firewall RFC but wanted to verify this from paloalto as well&lt;/FONT&gt;&lt;/LI-SPOILER&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 05:00:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/firewall-sessions/m-p/1245321#M6587</guid>
      <dc:creator>wasan.altalhouni</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-01-12T05:00:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall sessions</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/firewall-sessions/m-p/1245333#M6590</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/1383433371"&gt;@wasan.altalhouni&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It sounds like the vendor is trying to sell 'Aggregate Session Limits' by load-balancing across two boxes ? While you can technically spread the load, you aren't 'adding' the capacity of the hardware. You are just splitting the risk. If a single session exceeds the limit of one box, or if one box fails, the whole 'added' math falls apart because the session state can't be seamlessly shared at that scale.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;You should size firewalls based on the single-appliance limit and should avoid&amp;nbsp;playing "math games" with HA pairs because security is about reliability. If you need 200k sessions, you buy a box rated for 200k sessions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Think about what happens during a failover&amp;nbsp;— If they are truly 'combining' sessions to reach a higher number, what happens to the traffic when one firewall needs a reboot or a cable gets pulled? The risk is that one firewall can't handle the load of both and there's a risk that the network goes down.&amp;nbsp; At that point they've bought a single point of failure split into two boxes.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 09:10:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/next-generation-firewall/firewall-sessions/m-p/1245333#M6590</guid>
      <dc:creator>kiwi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-01-12T09:10:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

