<?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 Failover A/S EIGRP in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-failover-a-s-eigrp/m-p/2125697#M394410</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a question concerning EIGRP and static routes on our ASA Failover pair in an A/S configuration. The Active ASA is participating in an EIGRP AS and the Standby doesn’t receive any of the EIGRP routes, which, if I understand correctly, is the expected behavior. The problem that we are trying to solve is how to use a Network Management Server (NSM) to actively monitor via ICMP the Standby in case it goes down. This is not working now because NMS is not directly connected to the A/S failover pair and thus it cannot ping the Standby firewall since there is no route back to the NMS. Our proposed solution is to add a static route that points to the NMS. We believe the best way to do this is to configure the route with higher administrative distance than EIGRP (&amp;gt;90) so the Standby firewall would have a route back to the NMS and it wouldn’t affect the active EIGRP routing. Please let me know if we what were are proposing is a good practice. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks for the assitance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;fwco01# show running-config router&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;router eigrp 200&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no auto-summary&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;eigrp stub connected static summary&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network 10.NNN.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;passive-interface default&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface DMZ&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface OUTSIDE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface OUTSIDE-BACKUP&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;redistribute static&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Proposed Route:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;route DMZ 10.NNN.79.250 255.255.255.255 10.NNN.249.252 100&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:34:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>kkeelan</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-12T00:34:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA Failover A/S EIGRP</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-failover-a-s-eigrp/m-p/2125697#M394410</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is a question concerning EIGRP and static routes on our ASA Failover pair in an A/S configuration. The Active ASA is participating in an EIGRP AS and the Standby doesn’t receive any of the EIGRP routes, which, if I understand correctly, is the expected behavior. The problem that we are trying to solve is how to use a Network Management Server (NSM) to actively monitor via ICMP the Standby in case it goes down. This is not working now because NMS is not directly connected to the A/S failover pair and thus it cannot ping the Standby firewall since there is no route back to the NMS. Our proposed solution is to add a static route that points to the NMS. We believe the best way to do this is to configure the route with higher administrative distance than EIGRP (&amp;gt;90) so the Standby firewall would have a route back to the NMS and it wouldn’t affect the active EIGRP routing. Please let me know if we what were are proposing is a good practice. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks for the assitance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;fwco01# show running-config router&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;router eigrp 200&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no auto-summary&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;eigrp stub connected static summary&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;network 10.NNN.0.0 255.0.0.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;passive-interface default&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface DMZ&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface OUTSIDE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no passive-interface OUTSIDE-BACKUP&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;redistribute static&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Proposed Route:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;route DMZ 10.NNN.79.250 255.255.255.255 10.NNN.249.252 100&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 2019 00:34:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-failover-a-s-eigrp/m-p/2125697#M394410</guid>
      <dc:creator>kkeelan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-12T00:34:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ASA Failover A/S EIGRP</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-failover-a-s-eigrp/m-p/2125698#M394415</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Ken,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To be honest with you, that sounds good but what I am not sure is the fact that the standby unit does not have a routing table at all so wheter it has a route on its routing table is not gonna use it.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So what I would do is to take advantage of the Proxy-arp feature with ARP &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="happy" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/4.5.4/images/emoticons/happy.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We know the Standby ASA knows how to reach the primary unit right ( If this were not the case how would it exchange hello packets with the primary one) so what we could do is to let the primary ( Active) ASA the following:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Perfom a nat translation from the NMS machine to the asa primary interface ip address when the destination is the standby ip addres &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="happy" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/4.5.4/images/emoticons/happy.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt; In this case the secondary unit will receive the packet and it will know where to reply...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Let me know if you could test both of them and of course share the result&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2012 06:53:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-failover-a-s-eigrp/m-p/2125698#M394415</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-12-08T06:53:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

