<?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: Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/4764322#M1097281</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Yep, that does the trick.&amp;nbsp; An ACP from the inside zone to the inside zone is what solves this problem.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:06:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>christopher.lambeth@gdt.com</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2023-01-27T23:06:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529874#M132958</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have read a statement same-security-traffic is not applicable on FTD. Traffic between FTD interfaces (inter) and hairpinning (intra) is allowed by default, so i thought multiple interface in same security zone in FTD by default allow Communication&amp;nbsp; even if default ACL policy is Block .. but its seem like its not like that .. i am not sure what that statement mean in FTD .. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Apart from i need one more clarification -&amp;nbsp; what configuration need to apply to Provide the communication between interface if they are Belong to same security zone , &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2018 03:38:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529874#M132958</guid>
      <dc:creator>Parveen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-02T03:38:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529875#M132959</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Berwal, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I believe you're trying to get 2 different physical interfaces (in the same security zone) to communicate with each other.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If this is the case, then you need to create a "flexconfig" , a PBR rule among these 2 interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;See if this configuration video helps: &lt;A href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakHhw9CR5Y" title="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakHhw9CR5Y"&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lakHhw9CR5Y&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2018 04:18:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529875#M132959</guid>
      <dc:creator>Andre Camillo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-02T04:18:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529876#M132960</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Andre &lt;SPAN style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;For the Response&lt;/SPAN&gt;, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;, yes i am trying&amp;nbsp; to &lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px;"&gt;get 2 different physical interfaces (in the same security zone) to communicate with each other. in my case these 2 interface Belong to inside LAN ,&amp;nbsp; i can achieve communication&amp;nbsp; by creating an Access policy in which keeping source and destination zone is same ... but i still not understand the significance of crating a security Zone in FTD , i am assuming if i have put 2 interface in same zone that should communicate with each other without explicitly create a rule in ACL policy ..&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px;"&gt; &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px;"&gt;and also trying to understand what that statement means " &lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial; font-size: 12px;"&gt;same-security-traffic is not applicable on FTD. Traffic between FTD interfaces (inter) and hairpinning (intra) is allowed by default "&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-size: 12px; font-family: arial;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-size: 12px; font-family: arial;"&gt;Regards&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-size: 12px; font-family: arial;"&gt;Parveen &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Apr 2018 04:32:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529876#M132960</guid>
      <dc:creator>Parveen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-02T04:32:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529877#M132961</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Praveen,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FTD is inherently a zone-based firewall, and same-security-traffic cli is not required to achieve intra and inter interface communication.&amp;nbsp; ACP rule is required to make this work, as you specify exactly what communication you want to allow within that security zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is different from ASA, where interfaces in same security level and with same-security-traffic turned on will allow communication with out an ACL.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Goran &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2018 13:19:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/3529877#M132961</guid>
      <dc:creator>goransx</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-06T13:19:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower threat Defense intra zone Communication</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/4764322#M1097281</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yep, that does the trick.&amp;nbsp; An ACP from the inside zone to the inside zone is what solves this problem.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2023 23:06:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-threat-defense-intra-zone-communication/m-p/4764322#M1097281</guid>
      <dc:creator>christopher.lambeth@gdt.com</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-01-27T23:06:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

