<?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 Firewall Failover Interface Prptection in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-failover-interface-prptection/m-p/5340700#M1123250</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I would like to suggest to Cisco, as an improvement option for further firewall hardware and software releases, to add an option for a protection on Firewall High Availability Failover link protection. For now there is only one L3 point interface for a Failover link per device, and the only way to have a bare minimum protection is L2 LACP or such interface protection. But other vendors, like Palo Alto, offer the possibility to configure a secondary L3 link on different L2 inferfaces for HA protection, and this offers the flexibility to have a HA Faiover secondary link through completely different path on another existing link between sites.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:19:58 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>ivan-stevkovski</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-10-21T17:19:58Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firewall Failover Interface Prptection</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-failover-interface-prptection/m-p/5340700#M1123250</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would like to suggest to Cisco, as an improvement option for further firewall hardware and software releases, to add an option for a protection on Firewall High Availability Failover link protection. For now there is only one L3 point interface for a Failover link per device, and the only way to have a bare minimum protection is L2 LACP or such interface protection. But other vendors, like Palo Alto, offer the possibility to configure a secondary L3 link on different L2 inferfaces for HA protection, and this offers the flexibility to have a HA Faiover secondary link through completely different path on another existing link between sites.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:19:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-failover-interface-prptection/m-p/5340700#M1123250</guid>
      <dc:creator>ivan-stevkovski</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-10-21T17:19:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firewall Failover Interface Prptection</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-failover-interface-prptection/m-p/5340723#M1123251</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The best place to put this feedback is to your Cisco account team.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2025 18:50:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firewall-failover-interface-prptection/m-p/5340723#M1123251</guid>
      <dc:creator>ahollifield</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-10-21T18:50:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

