<?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 PRSM in multi-device mode ( in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523664#M236447</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;PRSM in multi-device mode ("off-box") is the only way to maintain automatic synchronization between a pair of CX modules installed in an HA pair of ASAs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Without that you have to make the same changes manually in each ASA's CX module via PRSM on-box (single device mode).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:21:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-07-19T15:21:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA CX failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523663#M236445</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We have a&amp;nbsp;Pair of ASA 5515-X in active/passive failover, each with CX module.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While the ASAs remain aligned to any changes in the configuration, it is not so for the CX module - that seems to be totally independent from each other and need to be configurate separately.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We spent a lot of time trying to solve this problem, but without finding the solution:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there a way to maintain the same configuration between the CXs, without using the Prism Security Manager?&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;It is obvious that I can not propose to a customer who purchases a pair of ASAs, also to set up a virtual appliance and buy a license.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Claudio&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 04:29:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523663#M236445</guid>
      <dc:creator>battanc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T04:29:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PRSM in multi-device mode (</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523664#M236447</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;PRSM in multi-device mode ("off-box") is the only way to maintain automatic synchronization between a pair of CX modules installed in an HA pair of ASAs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Without that you have to make the same changes manually in each ASA's CX module via PRSM on-box (single device mode).&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2014 15:21:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523664#M236447</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-07-19T15:21:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Thanks for the answer.I find</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523665#M236451</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks for the answer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I find this choice of Cisco really mad.&lt;BR /&gt;I understand that Cisco wants to "force" a customer to buy PRSM off-box, but the only result is that I can no longer propose a failover pair of ASA-CX to a Customer, because the total quote is out of market.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And then I will use products of other brands.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2014 12:33:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523665#M236451</guid>
      <dc:creator>battanc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-07-21T12:33:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I wouldn't be surprised to</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523666#M236454</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I wouldn't be surprised to see this particular behavior change in future releases. Your complaint is shared by many customers and partners - both large and small.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Overall, the CX and PRSM feels a bit "rushed to market". Have a look at the release notes and the astonishing amount of bugs being addressed in the very small incremental point releases.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jul 2014 22:38:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-cx-failover/m-p/2523666#M236454</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-07-21T22:38:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

