<?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 ASA Fail-Over Configuration in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-fail-over-configuration/m-p/3209913#M1065029</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have two ASA5585s physically connected for FO. Two interfaces have been used; one interface is used for the State Link and the second link is configured for the LAN FO. I've read in some documentation that the recommended configuration for FO is to connect the two ASAs through a switch or two switches.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I wanted to find out why it's better to connect the two ASAs via switch and not directly when configuring them for Fail-Over. Can someone explain to me the reasons why? &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:37:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>zekebashi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T14:37:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA Fail-Over Configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-fail-over-configuration/m-p/3209913#M1065029</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We have two ASA5585s physically connected for FO. Two interfaces have been used; one interface is used for the State Link and the second link is configured for the LAN FO. I've read in some documentation that the recommended configuration for FO is to connect the two ASAs through a switch or two switches.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I wanted to find out why it's better to connect the two ASAs via switch and not directly when configuring them for Fail-Over. Can someone explain to me the reasons why? &lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:37:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-fail-over-configuration/m-p/3209913#M1065029</guid>
      <dc:creator>zekebashi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T14:37:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA Fail-Over Configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-fail-over-configuration/m-p/3209940#M1065032</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;This might be the reason:&lt;BR /&gt;"If you do not use a switch between the units, if the interface fails, the link is brought down on both peers. &lt;BR /&gt;This condition may hamper troubleshooting efforts because you cannot easily determine which unit has the failed interface and caused the link to come down."&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Page 2: &lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/asa/asa95/configuration/general/asa-95-general-config/ha-failover.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/asa/asa95/configuration/general/asa-95-general-config/ha-failover.pdf&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;br, Micke</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Nov 2017 22:57:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-fail-over-configuration/m-p/3209940#M1065032</guid>
      <dc:creator>mikael.lahtela</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-11-02T22:57:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

