<?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: LACP on Passive Palo Alto in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553301#M112517</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Seb., Agreed, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly this morning. I'm going back to your design/point. Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Mike&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:15:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>michaelmertens</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-08-10T16:15:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>LACP on Passive Palo Alto</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553274#M112514</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am planning a new site and want to make sure my detailed design will not be a problem. I will have two PA-440s in Active/Passive High Availability mode. These will connect to a stack of Cisco C9300s. I will have an LACP port-channel connecting one port of each Cisco switch (ports g1/0/1 and g2/0/1 in the stack to PAN Eth 1 on act and PAN Eth 2 on Passive....As we do not do Path or Link monitoring for HA, I am trying to avoid losing a Cisco switch in the stack and black-holing to a passive PAN, or the active PAN not having a functional switch to forward to. Therefore, I'm planning a LACP channel to span both Cisco switches in the stack but one of LACP members goes to Pt 1 of the active PAN and the other member goes to the passive PAN. (Please see diagram).&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;My question: The passive PAN does NOT send LACP packets- correct? The PAN's passive member in the cluster DOES provide ethernet carrier on the port, I want to make sure it does NOT send LACPDUs, and the Cisco switch sees it as an active member of the port-channel and forwards packets to a passive PAN...I just want to make sure...&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks!!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Mike&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:59:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553274#M112514</guid>
      <dc:creator>michaelmertens</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-08-10T13:59:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: LACP on Passive Palo Alto</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553277#M112515</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi there,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Why would you connect half of your port-channel to a device that is not going to pass traffic?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The typical way of connecting a active/passive HA pair to a stack of switches would be to take two ports from each firewall and connect them across the switch stack:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PA1: Eth1 -&amp;gt; gi1/0/1&amp;nbsp; - Po1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PA1: Eth2 -&amp;gt; gi2/0/1&amp;nbsp; - Po1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PA2: Eth1 -&amp;gt; gi1/0/2&amp;nbsp; - Po2&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PA2: Eth2 -&amp;gt; gi2/0/2&amp;nbsp; - Po2&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You would then configure pre-negotiation on the passive port-channel to ensure sub-second failover.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://docs.paloaltonetworks.com/pan-os/10-2/pan-os-admin/high-availability/ha-concepts/lacp-and-lldp-pre-negotiation-for-activepassive-ha" target="_blank"&gt;LACP and LLDP Pre-Negotiation for Active/Passive HA (paloaltonetworks.com)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;cheers,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Seb.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 14:17:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553277#M112515</guid>
      <dc:creator>seb_rupik</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-08-10T14:17:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: LACP on Passive Palo Alto</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553301#M112517</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Seb., Agreed, I guess I wasn't thinking clearly this morning. I'm going back to your design/point. Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Mike&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2023 16:15:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/lacp-on-passive-palo-alto/m-p/553301#M112517</guid>
      <dc:creator>michaelmertens</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-08-10T16:15:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

