<?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 ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260349#M348247</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks Karsten&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I discovered that ACL issue when I tried to lab the migration.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I found this bug &lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/cisco/psn/bssprt/bss?searchType=bstbugidsearch&amp;amp;page=bstBugDetail&amp;amp;BugID=CSCtf57830" target="_blank"&gt;CSCtf57830&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Conditions&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT exempt is configured with acl that contains&lt;STRONG&gt; any&lt;/STRONG&gt; as the destination in the access-list tied to nat 0.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I removed the NAT 0 statements and the ACLs seem to have migrated properly now.&amp;nbsp; Since NAT control is no longer used in later ASA code I would assume it is safe to leave the NAT 0's out of the final migration.&amp;nbsp; Anything not specifically defined as being NAT'd goes through unchanged.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This migration procedure seems fraught with danger.&amp;nbsp; It's not always possible to cover every config item in the time given so I thing the rule is to expect to deal with issues once you bring the firewalls back into service.&amp;nbsp; Don't you just love being the tester for Cisco ?&amp;nbsp; Especially on live networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BTW Karsten.&amp;nbsp; What does PITA mean ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again, St.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:13:25 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>eagles-nest</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-06-16T19:13:25Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260344#M348242</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does anyone know where I can find an upgrade path advisory to see if I can go directly from 8.0(5)9 to a version 9 ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Are there any advised intermediate steps ?&amp;nbsp; Documentation on the config migration process generally refers to going from 8.2 to 8.4&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;but I'm hoping to do this in one step.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also has anyone achieved the process with zero downtime ?&amp;nbsp; I'm curious to know what happens, if anything, when I bring up one&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;firewall with a post 8.4 config while the other has a pre-8.4 config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I'm thinking I take the standby down&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Reboot with, hopefully 9.x code and the config migrates.&amp;nbsp; What does the active have to say about this ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would then plan to failover active on the post 8.4 ASA, and take down the other.&amp;nbsp; Then either let it migrate again as it reboots or wipe it, reboot and&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;bring it back in to the pair as if it's a new blank config and have the current active replicate the migrated config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many Thanks, St.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 01:56:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260344#M348242</guid>
      <dc:creator>eagles-nest</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T01:56:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260345#M348243</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;There are many different opinions about this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From the 9.x release notes:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can upgrade from any previous release (if&amp;nbsp; available for your model) directly to the latest release. When upgrading&amp;nbsp; to Version 9.0, because of configuration migration, you cannot perform a&amp;nbsp; downgrade; be sure to back up your configuration file in case you want&amp;nbsp; to downgrade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are upgrading to Version 9.0, see the migration section in the release notes for configuration migration information.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you are upgrading from a pre-8.3 release, see also the &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;A href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa83/upgrading/migrating.html"&gt;Cisco ASA 5500 Migration Guide to Version 8.3 and Later &lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;for important information about migrating your configuration. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would prefer to upgrade first to 8.2.5 and then to 9.x&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since this is a mayor upgrade then zero-dowtime is not supported, however it is possible some times(depends on how well the upgrade goes and how complex is your config).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Failover will still work with different versions but it is not stable, you should be ok just while upgrading.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You are right about the steps:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;upgrade standby, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;make it active, if everything is fine:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;upgrade primary, and finally make it active.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Felipe. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:10:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260345#M348243</guid>
      <dc:creator>lcambron</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-06-11T23:10:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260346#M348244</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks Felipe&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think I had found the docs you refer from hence the question.&amp;nbsp; The doc below says go to v9 from any other version.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa91/release/notes/asarn91.html#wp495651"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/security/asa/asa91/release/notes/asarn91.html#wp495651&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While the one below says go via 8.2&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-12690"&gt;https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-12690#How_to_Upgrade_Your_ASA_to_83&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I think I will go via 8.2 to be safe.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What confuses me is when I upgrade one ASA we have one with pre 8.3 config and one with post 8.3 config.&amp;nbsp; How will this be treated by the active ASA ?&amp;nbsp; So I take one ASA offline.&amp;nbsp; The other is pre 8.3 code and working live.&amp;nbsp; I upgrade the offline ASA and it migrates its config to post 8.3 commands.&amp;nbsp; When I bring it back up will it join the other ASA and be standby with post 8.3 code and config while the current active one is pre 8.3 code and config ?&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can see this can be done when there is no config migration but with the config migration if we try to keep one ASA live there must be a window where one ASA will be pre 8.3 and the other post 8.3 code and config.&amp;nbsp; Maybe I misunderstand the failover part but I thought the active will attempt to replicate to a standby that has just been booted.&amp;nbsp; And we may have a phase where they are on different config types unless we do the final migration of config to both ASAs at once.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Take down one, upgrade code and boot it.&amp;nbsp; Let it migrate config.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Take down the other, upgrade code and boot and it joins as standby.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So the downtime is the time to take both out of operation, reboot one and have its code migrated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can't see a way a zero downtime migration can work with the config migration phase being done.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks, St.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:42:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260346#M348244</guid>
      <dc:creator>eagles-nest</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-06-12T07:42:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260347#M348245</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Excalty, since it is a mayor upgrade then zero-downtime is hard to accomplish.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The failover will still work with a pre and post 8.3 config, not sure if command replication is still done (will have to replicate this in a lab) but it is better to take them off production for the upgrade.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Felipe. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:00:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260347#M348245</guid>
      <dc:creator>lcambron</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-06-12T12:00:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260348#M348246</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In my opinion, it's best to plan some downtime with that upgrade, but if you plan your upgrade well you can achieve zero-downtime. There are some things to take care of:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Has you ASA enough memory? If not upgrade the secondary ASA with new memory, bring it back into the FO-cluster, then upgrade the primary unit. Failover will remain active.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The correct way for zero-downtime-upgrade would be 8.0 -&amp;gt; 8.2 -&amp;gt; 8.3 -&amp;gt; 8.4 -&amp;gt; 9.0 -&amp;gt; 9.1 because in FO only the next minor-version is allowed to be different on the two ASAs. (8.4 to 9.0 is allowed because 9.0 is the following release after 8.4)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;If you go from 8.0 to a release &amp;gt;8.2, then the ACLs will not be migrated. So the step via 8.2 is important.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;The NAT-migration is a PITA and often builds a non-working configuration. Be prepared to completely rewrite your NAT-config. I would prefer to do that before starting the migration as it is a good chance to remove old entries that are not needed any more.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Based on that, my preferred way of upgrading that would be the following (if you are allowed to have some downtime):&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Upgrade memory if needed.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Take one ASA offline and upgrade that up to the version you want. There you can examine and correct the migrated config.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Test as much traffic as possible with the packet-tracer until everything seems fine.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Switch off the active ASA (the one running 8.0) and power on the ASA with the new version. Here you have a short downtime. This downtime can be reduced by having both ASAs switched on and shutting and unshutting the switchports of both ASAs&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Test again, in case something goes horribly wrong, switch back to your old verision ASA; of course you will again have some downtime.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;--&amp;nbsp; &lt;BR /&gt;Don't stop after you've improved your network! Improve the world by lending money to the working poor: &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-external-small" href="http://www.kiva.org/invitedby/karsteni"&gt;http://www.kiva.org/invitedby/karsteni&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:43:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260348#M348246</guid>
      <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-06-12T13:43:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA 8.0 to 9.x directly ?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260349#M348247</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks Karsten&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I discovered that ACL issue when I tried to lab the migration.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I found this bug &lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/cisco/psn/bssprt/bss?searchType=bstbugidsearch&amp;amp;page=bstBugDetail&amp;amp;BugID=CSCtf57830" target="_blank"&gt;CSCtf57830&lt;/A&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Conditions&lt;/STRONG&gt;:&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;NAT exempt is configured with acl that contains&lt;STRONG&gt; any&lt;/STRONG&gt; as the destination in the access-list tied to nat 0.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So I removed the NAT 0 statements and the ACLs seem to have migrated properly now.&amp;nbsp; Since NAT control is no longer used in later ASA code I would assume it is safe to leave the NAT 0's out of the final migration.&amp;nbsp; Anything not specifically defined as being NAT'd goes through unchanged.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This migration procedure seems fraught with danger.&amp;nbsp; It's not always possible to cover every config item in the time given so I thing the rule is to expect to deal with issues once you bring the firewalls back into service.&amp;nbsp; Don't you just love being the tester for Cisco ?&amp;nbsp; Especially on live networks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;BTW Karsten.&amp;nbsp; What does PITA mean ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again, St.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:13:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260349#M348247</guid>
      <dc:creator>eagles-nest</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-06-16T19:13:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>PITA=Pain In The @$$. I am</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260350#M348248</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;PITA=Pain In The @$$. I am getting ready for that as I have to migrate our VPN firewall to a new code due to this Cisco Security Advisory:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Cisco ASA Software IKEv1 and IKEv2 Buffer Overflow Vulnerability &lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20160210-asa-ike?vs_f=Cisco%20Security%20Advisory&amp;amp;vs_cat=Security%20Intelligence&amp;amp;vs_type=RSS&amp;amp;vs_p=Cisco%20ASA%20Software%20IKEv1%20and%20IKEv2%20Buffer%20Overflow%20Vulnerability&amp;amp;vs_k=1&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 18:00:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-8-0-to-9-x-directly/m-p/2260350#M348248</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jiri Votruba</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2016-02-17T18:00:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

