<?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 Safe values for OSPF timers on FWSM? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527010#M234612</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a pair of FWSMs running active/passive. Firmware is&amp;nbsp;4.1. I want to reduce the failover time by tuning the OSPF hello and dead timers. I'm thinking of 1 second and 3 seconds, but given this is a disruptive change, I'd like an opinion on whether these values are OK for the FWSM&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max Caines, University of Wolverhampton&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:48:49 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>max.caines_2</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-12T04:48:49Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Safe values for OSPF timers on FWSM?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527010#M234612</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a pair of FWSMs running active/passive. Firmware is&amp;nbsp;4.1. I want to reduce the failover time by tuning the OSPF hello and dead timers. I'm thinking of 1 second and 3 seconds, but given this is a disruptive change, I'd like an opinion on whether these values are OK for the FWSM&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max Caines, University of Wolverhampton&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:48:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527010#M234612</guid>
      <dc:creator>max.caines_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T04:48:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi,I think it would be better</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527011#M234616</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think it would be better to not reduce the values too much as the Default values are 10 Sec and 40 Sec respectively.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It might cause unexpected Flaps on the OSPF.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Refer:-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/fwsm/fwsm41/command/reference/fwsm_command_ref/no.html#wp1646737&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have an enhancement for the NSF for the Dynamic protocols on the ASA device expected in the future:-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;CSCsu90386&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks and Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Vibhor Amrodia&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 01:53:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527011#M234616</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vibhor Amrodia</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-10-08T01:53:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi VibhorOK, point taken, but</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527012#M234620</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Vibhor&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OK, point taken, but there are people running sub-second timers on OSPF without problems, and while NSF may be coming for the ASA, the FWSM doesn't support it and isn't ever going to. What I was hoping was that someone might actually have tried this, but it looks like no-one has. Fortunately we are going to replace the FWSMs with a pair of Palo Altos which do support NSF, so I may leave it&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:02:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527012#M234620</guid>
      <dc:creator>max.caines_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-10-08T08:02:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hi Max,I think this might be</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527013#M234623</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Max,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think this might be dependent on the your network and the latency. It would be different for different cases but i have seen it working successfully with such low timers in some cases.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks and Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Vibhor Amrodia&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:09:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527013#M234623</guid>
      <dc:creator>Vibhor Amrodia</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-10-08T08:09:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>HI VibhorOK, I think you've</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527014#M234626</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;HI Vibhor&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OK, I think you've convinced me.&amp;nbsp;I shall leave them alone. As there won't be any more updates for the FWSM, it's only hardware failure that would cause a reconvergence event, so I think we'll live with that&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 08:17:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/safe-values-for-ospf-timers-on-fwsm/m-p/2527014#M234626</guid>
      <dc:creator>max.caines_2</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-10-08T08:17:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

