<?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: Why do we have to separate Session Owner and Session Setup Device in an A/A-Cluster in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/why-do-we-have-to-separate-session-owner-and-session-setup/m-p/10812#M7973</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I dont know if im right on this but I can imagine that session owner is the statetable itself which even in A/A configurations actually is working like A/P. That is one of the boxes owns the session but mirror this to the other box (in case of failure).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While session setup is the physical box which the packet actually arrived to (which we dont know which box it will be in A/A setup).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is if box1 is session owner (mirroring to box2) and a packet that arrives to box1 is then processed by the session owner (who happens to be at box1) and then forwarded if policy matches. If a packet arrives to box2 this box will forward this to box1 to notify the session owner (and setup a session) but then it will forward the packet on its own once the session is setup and it has a "cache" of it in its own memory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or if its the other way around (session setup is the statetable while session owner is which physical box the packet arrived to) :smileysilly:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Because of this session owner and session setup is two different processes?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:53:17 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-03-21T07:53:17Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Why do we have to separate Session Owner and Session Setup Device in an A/A-Cluster</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/why-do-we-have-to-separate-session-owner-and-session-setup/m-p/10811#M7972</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hel&lt;SPAN style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;lo,&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"&gt;in the documentation it is said: "&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;The separation of session owner and session setup devices is necessary to avoid race conditions that can occur in asymmetrically routed environments.”&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But nothing more in detail.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I absolutely understand, what the session owner and what the session setup device is doing and I understand the configuration. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But I do not understand the need for separation. Why isn't it possible that the session owner is doing the setup as well?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can somebody explain?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sylvia&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:15:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/why-do-we-have-to-separate-session-owner-and-session-setup/m-p/10811#M7972</guid>
      <dc:creator>sylvia</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-03-21T07:15:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Why do we have to separate Session Owner and Session Setup Device in an A/A-Cluster</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/why-do-we-have-to-separate-session-owner-and-session-setup/m-p/10812#M7973</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I dont know if im right on this but I can imagine that session owner is the statetable itself which even in A/A configurations actually is working like A/P. That is one of the boxes owns the session but mirror this to the other box (in case of failure).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While session setup is the physical box which the packet actually arrived to (which we dont know which box it will be in A/A setup).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is if box1 is session owner (mirroring to box2) and a packet that arrives to box1 is then processed by the session owner (who happens to be at box1) and then forwarded if policy matches. If a packet arrives to box2 this box will forward this to box1 to notify the session owner (and setup a session) but then it will forward the packet on its own once the session is setup and it has a "cache" of it in its own memory.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or if its the other way around (session setup is the statetable while session owner is which physical box the packet arrived to) :smileysilly:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Because of this session owner and session setup is two different processes?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 07:53:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/why-do-we-have-to-separate-session-owner-and-session-setup/m-p/10812#M7973</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikand</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-03-21T07:53:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

