<?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: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215604#M1042685</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I would try to separate networks for clients/servers and interconnects between network devices.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Besides the problem of accessing the ASA for management, you will have problems with accessibility of the host in the 50 and 100 network.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Let's consider the following example:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- you are trying to reach a host in the 192.168.50.0/24 network from PC1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- the host has ASA-1 as default gateway&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PC1 will not be able to communicate with the host because the initial packet will reach the host via ASA-2, but th return packet will be sent via ASA-1, ASA-1 not having an entry for the initial packet will drop the response packet.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The above default behavior can be changed configuring&amp;nbsp;TCP State Bypass:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/asa-5500-x-series-next-generation-firewalls/118995-configure-asa-00.html" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/asa-5500-x-series-next-generation-firewalls/118995-configure-asa-00.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would&amp;nbsp;have only one ASA as default gateway for a network.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If redundancy is need you can set up a HA or a cluster.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If you have multiple L3 interconnect links, that should not be a problem, it would probably be a good idea to use dynamic routing protocol. For ASA management you can use an inside interface then.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:08:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Bogdan Nita</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-11-13T13:08:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215501#M1042684</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi guys,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Consider the following topology:&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="b0BOKeP" style="width: 854px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/3247i17775548803CC441/image-size/large?v=v2&amp;amp;px=999" role="button" title="b0BOKeP" alt="b0BOKeP" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Let's say PC1 is my "management" device or network.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Both ASA's can reach eachother over the 2 different VLANS.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- The ASA's each "represent" 1 datacenter.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Now there is the following issue if i want to manage ASA-1 (ICMP/SSH/HTTPS):&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If i create a static route on ASA-1 to the 10.0.0.0/24 network on it's VLAN50 interface:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- I can manage the VLAN50 interface on ASA-1 from PC1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- I can not manage the VLAN100 interface on ASA-1 from PC1 cause traffic is received on it's VLAN100 interface but send back out of it's VLAN50 interface which is not possible with ASA's (right?)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Vice versa if i create the static route on it's VLAN100 interface.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Now i'm in a environment where i can't easily edit all the routes since it's a production network. Basically i'm looking for the right / a good way to manage devices on the "far" side (including the ASA itself). How should i handle this when you're working with subinterfaces on a ASA?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:44:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215501#M1042684</guid>
      <dc:creator>Eric Snijders</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T14:44:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215604#M1042685</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would try to separate networks for clients/servers and interconnects between network devices.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Besides the problem of accessing the ASA for management, you will have problems with accessibility of the host in the 50 and 100 network.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Let's consider the following example:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- you are trying to reach a host in the 192.168.50.0/24 network from PC1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- the host has ASA-1 as default gateway&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;PC1 will not be able to communicate with the host because the initial packet will reach the host via ASA-2, but th return packet will be sent via ASA-1, ASA-1 not having an entry for the initial packet will drop the response packet.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The above default behavior can be changed configuring&amp;nbsp;TCP State Bypass:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/asa-5500-x-series-next-generation-firewalls/118995-configure-asa-00.html" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/security/asa-5500-x-series-next-generation-firewalls/118995-configure-asa-00.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would&amp;nbsp;have only one ASA as default gateway for a network.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If redundancy is need you can set up a HA or a cluster.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If you have multiple L3 interconnect links, that should not be a problem, it would probably be a good idea to use dynamic routing protocol. For ASA management you can use an inside interface then.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:08:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215604#M1042685</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bogdan Nita</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-13T13:08:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215605#M1042686</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/218663"&gt;@Eric Snijders&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Topology is not available. If I understood it right, you need to play with routing but I´d like to see your topology first.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;-If I helped you somehow, please, rate it as useful.-&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:11:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215605#M1042686</guid>
      <dc:creator>Flavio Miranda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-13T13:11:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215609#M1042723</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Bogdan,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the reply and the provided information. What you are saying is basically the construction i'm dealing with:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;- 2 Datacenters&lt;BR /&gt;- Both Datacenter with ASA's (2 in each datacenter, 1 dedicated for management traffic and 1 for production traffic)&lt;BR /&gt;- Both Datacenters are interconnected with Layer 3 switches (dedicated interconnectivity VLAN between the DC's)&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The problem so far it seems is that we have 1 "management-entry" (AnyConnect VPN, or "PC1" in this topology) and we would also like to manage the other datacenter.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;But from what i have learned is that if you want to manage a ASA, you can't enter that ASA on 1 (sub)interface and request another (sub)interface on that same ASA. So what would be the best approach to create 1 "management-network" from which we can manage all devices in both DC's from the AnyConnect network (PC1)?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 13:22:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215609#M1042723</guid>
      <dc:creator>Eric Snijders</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-13T13:22:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215708#M1042724</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Sorry I think I misunderstood a little bit your question.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In the topology you posted the only interface on ASA1 that PC1 can use to connect is the on that has the correct route back to ASA2.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You could try&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;TCP State Bypass, never configured it for traffic directed to the ASA, but it could work.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:18:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3215708#M1042724</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bogdan Nita</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-13T15:18:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3216190#M1042725</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Bogdan,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;As far as i know i tried everything:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Configured TCP Bypass&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Allowed ICMP for "any" on all the interfaces&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Configured ACL's with "permit ip any any" on all the interfaces&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- Configured same-security-level traffic for inter and intra&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- I tried playing with the "management-only" and "management-access" commands&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The approach is pretty simple, but there is probably a design flaw or something going on. If both DC's are connected and traffic between them occurs on a dedicated VLAN, is there seriously no way i can manage the ASA in the other DC on a (sub)interface that's different than the "inter-DC-VLAN"?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Nov 2017 10:55:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3216190#M1042725</guid>
      <dc:creator>Eric Snijders</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-14T10:55:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA - Management Network and Asymmetric Routing?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3217001#M1042726</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Eric,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In order to get to the bottom of this I think we should simplify the problem as much as we can:&lt;BR /&gt;Can the outside interface of the ASA be reached from a host connected on the inside interface ?&lt;BR /&gt;The answer is unfortunately no, and there is nothing that can be done about it.&lt;BR /&gt;The best answer that can be found to explain this behavior is that this is the way the ASA was designed.&lt;BR /&gt;Exception:&lt;BR /&gt;- if your VPN tunnel terminates on one interface you can access a different interface using management-access and NAT with route-lookup&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Nov 2017 13:39:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-management-network-and-asymmetric-routing/m-p/3217001#M1042726</guid>
      <dc:creator>Bogdan Nita</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-15T13:39:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

