So I've read a few posts describing different scenarios, and my scenario is quite similar to 1 (of many) answered by BAlfson :)
2 Sites, both currently use Uplink Balancing for 2x WAN connections at each site.
I've read about availability groups and making sure the order matches between sites, but wanted to make sure this was still the best way to set this up?
1) Is there any way to have redundant VPNs running for quickest failover, intelligently managed so the Sophos doesn't muck up the routes and return routes for traffic? (if I turned on 4 vpns ex: Site1WAN1--> Site2WAN1,Site1WAN2--> Site2WAN1,Site1WAN1--> Site2WAN2,Site1WAN2--> Site2WAN2 , and then setup 4x multipath rules on each Site in the same order, would that work, or even be beneficial over using availability groups?)
2) We currently use a VPN with EACH side being able to initiate (quicker turnups), everything I read says for failover to work, only 1 side can initiate, is this still accurate?
3) When I do implement redundant VPNs, what is to prevent the Sophos from panicking and wrongly directing traffic to/from the sites, *IF* 1 or both sites have a connection instability issue?
3a) Going the opposite of "instant" per my post, is there any sort of delay that the VPN turn up could be told to follow? (like the 5 min interval persistence on the uplink balancing itself?)
Thanks!
This thread was automatically locked due to age.
