<?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 I don't think its gonna be a in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734154#M178986</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I don't think its gonna be a problem by using same network between ASA2,ASA1 and ASA3,ASA4.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consider ASA2(1.0.0.1)--------(1.0.0.2)ASA1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let MAC of ASA2 be 222 and ASA1 be 111&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now coming to ASA3 (1.0.0.1)--------(1.0.0.2)ASA4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let MAC of&amp;nbsp;ASA3&amp;nbsp;be 333&amp;nbsp;and ASA4&amp;nbsp;be 444&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;whenever the data has to be moved to &lt;STRONG&gt;1.0.0.2 by ASA2 it would forward it to 111&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;whenever the data has to be moved to &lt;STRONG&gt;1.0.0.2 by&amp;nbsp;ASA3&amp;nbsp;it would forward it to 444&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;for ASA2 and ASA1 the only 1.0.0.0 network will be between them and same for ASA3 and ASA4 will think 1.0.0.0 in only in between themselves.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try making a tolopogy in gns3 tomm to explain it better &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Salman&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note: Just joined the support forum, didnt know it would be so much fun!!! &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😄&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😄&lt;/span&gt;&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;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:42:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>MOHAMMED SALMAN</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-09-08T15:42:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Do you think failover link interface ip address can be allowed to be the same with other device ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734151#M178983</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi As we know, failover has special ip address to connect primary asa and second asa. For example 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2. Do you think that&amp;nbsp;other device or other failover asa can use the 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 in the local network ? Thank you.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 06:34:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734151#M178983</guid>
      <dc:creator>eigrpy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T06:34:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Yes, definetly. As this</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734152#M178984</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, definetly. As this network is not gonna be routed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In other words, this network in not to be reached by anyone else. So it should be definetly allowed in another pair of failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Salman&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:02:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734152#M178984</guid>
      <dc:creator>MOHAMMED SALMAN</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-09-08T15:02:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thank you for your reply.</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734153#M178985</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your reply. Usually we do not route that ip address. That should not be a problem. Let us suppose the topology is like this : asa2--asa1-----asa3--asa4. here are two pair of failover, one is asa2 and asa1. second is asa3 and asa4. if they have the same ip address for failover link, do you think it would be ok ?&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:24:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734153#M178985</guid>
      <dc:creator>eigrpy</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-09-08T15:24:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I don't think its gonna be a</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734154#M178986</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I don't think its gonna be a problem by using same network between ASA2,ASA1 and ASA3,ASA4.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Consider ASA2(1.0.0.1)--------(1.0.0.2)ASA1&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let MAC of ASA2 be 222 and ASA1 be 111&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now coming to ASA3 (1.0.0.1)--------(1.0.0.2)ASA4&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let MAC of&amp;nbsp;ASA3&amp;nbsp;be 333&amp;nbsp;and ASA4&amp;nbsp;be 444&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;whenever the data has to be moved to &lt;STRONG&gt;1.0.0.2 by ASA2 it would forward it to 111&amp;nbsp;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;whenever the data has to be moved to &lt;STRONG&gt;1.0.0.2 by&amp;nbsp;ASA3&amp;nbsp;it would forward it to 444&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;for ASA2 and ASA1 the only 1.0.0.0 network will be between them and same for ASA3 and ASA4 will think 1.0.0.0 in only in between themselves.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I will try making a tolopogy in gns3 tomm to explain it better &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Salman&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Note: Just joined the support forum, didnt know it would be so much fun!!! &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😄&lt;/span&gt; &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😄&lt;/span&gt;&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;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2015 15:42:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/do-you-think-failover-link-interface-ip-address-can-be-allowed/m-p/2734154#M178986</guid>
      <dc:creator>MOHAMMED SALMAN</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-09-08T15:42:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

