<?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: HA - Link Monitoring in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/988#M767</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has there been any changes been made so that the Device with the most number of active links stay up ? I have a customer who has the same concerns. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It does make sense to keep the device with maximum number of active devices up with link monitoring is enabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sunil &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:07:57 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sunilsadanandan</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-09-22T12:07:57Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>HA - Link Monitoring</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/985#M764</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I´m testing the HA configuration of our firewalls and experience unexpected behavior.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If both HA members experience link down errors, we want the appliance with the most active links to be active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the "PAN-OS HA - Understanding PAN-OS HA states, timers and loops" document I found this:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"If both the active and passive devices experience multiple failures, the device with the least number of failed links or paths will function as the active device."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately this doesn´t work in our case.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If both members have one link down, the passive appliance goes into non-functional state and the active appliance stays active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now the active appliance looses another link but instead of switching to the 2nd appliance it stays active and in the ha-log you can read "staying in functional state upon monitor failed with peer not available to go active"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe I missed a configuration task?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alex&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:00:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/985#M764</guid>
      <dc:creator>asieber</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-08T14:00:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HA - Link Monitoring</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/986#M765</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have confirmed with engineering that this statement is not valid for current HA behavior, in a non functional stat we will not compare the number of failed links between the active and the passive device.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are in the process of correcting the online document.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the feedback.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Gary S.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 00:40:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/986#M765</guid>
      <dc:creator>gsamuels</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-09T00:40:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HA - Link Monitoring</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/987#M766</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;thx for the information,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;even I´m not happy about it &lt;img id="smileysad" class="emoticon emoticon-smileysad" src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.png" alt="Smiley Sad" title="Smiley Sad" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it would be better to change the behavior than to change the documentation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why should a appliance with 5 links down stay active when the backup device only has one link down?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Most of your competitors keep the the appliance with the most links up.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to file a change / enhancement request that you return to the old behavior?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;kind regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Alex&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 2011 07:08:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/987#M766</guid>
      <dc:creator>asieber</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-09T07:08:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HA - Link Monitoring</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/988#M767</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Has there been any changes been made so that the Device with the most number of active links stay up ? I have a customer who has the same concerns. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It does make sense to keep the device with maximum number of active devices up with link monitoring is enabled.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sunil &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:07:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/988#M767</guid>
      <dc:creator>sunilsadanandan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-09-22T12:07:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: HA - Link Monitoring</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/989#M768</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sunil/Alex,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would request you to please contact your sales team from Paloalto networks to put in a feature request for your scenario.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:26:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/ha-link-monitoring/m-p/989#M768</guid>
      <dc:creator>mrajdev</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-09-22T19:26:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

