Hi reaper,
thank you for your reply.
The information that the passive member does not do path monitoring was very valuable to me.
I totally agree with your recommendation.
In my real scenario, I have an additional connection between F1 and R2, so i'm think about putting more priority on F1,
for it will always be my active firewall.
Instead I'm thinking about not having a path-monitoring on the routers at all, because I can't see any value in this any more.
To answer my own question from the beginning:
F2 was the active partner,
when the interconnection between S1 und S2 goes down,
F2 sees the path to R1 down and sees itself as "failed"?
Now F1, which didn't do path monitoring becomes active (is healthy, has all links, sees that F2 reports itself as "failed", doesn't do path-monitoring already...)?
Now it does tracking to R1 and R2... But as the interconnection between S1 and S2 is down, it cannot reach R2.
So after some time it will marks itself as "failed"?
F2 is still in "failed"... so there's no failover back to F2, right?
Now the PBF tracker will find that R1 is available and F1 will forward traffic through it?
Is the answer,
"yes, it will actually failover, but already when the interconnection between the switches goes down"?
Thank you for helping me to understand.
... View more