<?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: Using Interface groups in an access policy? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4568043#M1088127</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks everyone. I got all the information I need.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:50:36 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-03-10T13:50:36Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567974#M1088109</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am doing a migration from a multi context ASA to a single context FTD. Both contexts in the ASA had a lot of sub interfaces and I want to make sure we don’t leak any traffic between the interfaces previously belonging to the two context.&lt;BR /&gt;Instead of manually add all interface zones in block rules, I wonder if I could use two interface groups and add the interfaces to those groups and then just do a block rule for traffic between those two interface groups?&lt;BR /&gt;I tried to add an interface group as an interface group, but when searching for that object in the ACP, I cannot find it either under Zones or Networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:34:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567974#M1088109</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:34:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567977#M1088110</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;how are you doing using FDM or FMC ?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:42:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567977#M1088110</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:42:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567979#M1088111</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using FMC and FTD 2130.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:43:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567979#M1088111</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:43:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567982#M1088112</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/256705"&gt;@Chess Norris&lt;/a&gt; sounds like you need to use "Security Zones" - add the interfaces to the required zones and create the required ACP rules.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:45:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567982#M1088112</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rob Ingram</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:45:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567986#M1088113</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The problem is that all interfaces allready belong to invidual zones (one zone per interface), so I can not create a new zone because an interface can only belong to one security zone. Thats why I thought I could use interface groups instead, but it seams like I cannot use interface groups in an access policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:55:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567986#M1088113</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:55:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567993#M1088114</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the information, then you need to do some ground work and change the design, most of the FTD are zone based.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You need to choose which path to go :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;1. we did some migration with multi-instance with FTD 4K&amp;nbsp; (FTD 21XX not support here i guess)&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-blogs/migrating-asa-multi-context-to-ftd-multi-instance/ba-p/3893465" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-blogs/migrating-asa-multi-context-to-ftd-multi-instance/ba-p/3893465&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;2. if you looking to zone with single instance then you need make design accordingly, this required some testing.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 12:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567993#M1088114</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T12:58:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567999#M1088116</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Correct - ACP is zone-based and cannot use Interface Groups. NAT rules can use IGs.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:06:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4567999#M1088116</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T13:06:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Using Interface groups in an access policy?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4568043#M1088127</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks everyone. I got all the information I need.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Chess&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2022 13:50:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/using-interface-groups-in-an-access-policy/m-p/4568043#M1088127</guid>
      <dc:creator>Chess Norris</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-03-10T13:50:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

