me_kenliu@hotmail.com
07-25-2004, 01:42 AM
masud.reza@masudreza.com (Masud Reza) wrote in message news:<4a33a0f5.0403101223.600e5549@posting.google.com>...
> If your failover configuration was correct and you turned off failover
> on the primary, the failover would actually occur and the secondary
> firewall will assume it's role of Active.
>
> The firewall on which you gave the 'no failover' command is now the
> Secondary. The failover ip address will be accepted. But the 'ip
> address' command can only be configured on an active unit.
>
> Masud
Hmmm... 'no failover' on the primary should disable the failover
feature altogether and not enable the secondary to become the active
unit. Actually all other commands before and after gets replicated
except the ip command. I think for the time being I just remind myself
to also enter the ip address on the secondary too. Pretty weird it's
not mentioned in the documentation though...
> If your failover configuration was correct and you turned off failover
> on the primary, the failover would actually occur and the secondary
> firewall will assume it's role of Active.
>
> The firewall on which you gave the 'no failover' command is now the
> Secondary. The failover ip address will be accepted. But the 'ip
> address' command can only be configured on an active unit.
>
> Masud
Hmmm... 'no failover' on the primary should disable the failover
feature altogether and not enable the secondary to become the active
unit. Actually all other commands before and after gets replicated
except the ip command. I think for the time being I just remind myself
to also enter the ip address on the secondary too. Pretty weird it's
not mentioned in the documentation though...