<?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 ZBF and VRF in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051266#M438992</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks, Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I made zone pair with a policy which pass traffi (just pass no inspection) something like this&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;zone-pair security LINE-&amp;gt;LINE source LINE destination LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and traffic starts passing, so I thiks you're right about new IOS and intra-zone pair relations. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It would be grate if I could change this behaviour to default, where rule was:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As soon as an interface is assigned to a zone, traffic will only flow to interfaces in the same zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it posible?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-08-29T10:22:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051257#M438983</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello, I'v got simple config, like this&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip vrf LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; rd 65000:1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;zone security LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface GigabitEthernet0/1.206&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; description -=LINE_UPLINK_ISP=-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; encapsulation dot1Q 206&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip vrf forwarding LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; zone-member security LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 195.23x.x.182 255.255.255.252&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;end&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface GigabitEthernet0/1.207&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; description -=LINE_PA_SPACE=-&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; encapsulation dot1Q 207&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip vrf forwarding LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; zone-member security LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; ip address 195.23x.x.185 255.255.255.248&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip route vrf LINE 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 195.239.108.181&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;No zone-pair for this zone line, no inspection rules configured.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However when user in vlan 207 with address&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ip 195.23x.x.186 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;mask 255.255.255.248&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;gw 195.23x.x.185&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;try to connect to Internet, or someone ping from internet to this user, all traffic is denied, when I do&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface GigabitEthernet0/1.207&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no zone-member security LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;interface GigabitEthernet0/1.206&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;no zone-member security LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;traffic is passing?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;why? I always think that in same zone all traffic allowed&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 23:45:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051257#M438983</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T23:45:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051258#M438984</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Kras,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would you mind to take the logs from the ZBFW&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-Ip inspect log drop-pkt &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then just try to connect with the ZBFW configuration in place ofcourse and provide me the logs &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;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rate all the helpful posts&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:35:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051258#M438984</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-23T18:35:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051259#M438985</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;here is the log message with ZBF config in place, I tried to connect via ssh to this host &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aug 24 2012 12:16:27.204 MSK: %FW-6-DROP_PKT: Dropping tcp session 95.16x.x.54:51245 195.23x.x.186:22&amp;nbsp; due to&amp;nbsp; policy match failure with ip ident 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 08:19:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051259#M438985</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-24T08:19:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051260#M438986</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, I want to say that rule for ZBF:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As soon as an interface is assigned to a zone, traffic will only flow to interfaces in the same zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Works without VRF just fine, but inside VRF it not works for me.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;might be it's an IOS bug for:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; (C3900-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 15.2(1)T1, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:34:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051260#M438986</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-24T09:34:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051261#M438987</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;And what happens if you leave the VRF setup and you set them on different zones and create an inspection policy to inspect traffic?&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;Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:27:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051261#M438987</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-24T16:27:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051262#M438988</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;strange thing happens, when I create second zone and create zone-pair policy, put second interface to this zone and back it to same zone LINE it starts work as I expect, now all config that I post works! &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;why so?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:37:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051262#M438988</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-25T13:37:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051263#M438989</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Krasnoperov,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At least is good that is currently working, we could try to perform an upgrade to avoid a bug.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I have the version you are running to look for a bug because as you have explained the problem, the behavior does not make sense.&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;Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:19:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051263#M438989</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-25T17:19:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051264#M438990</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yep, we have two router with identical IOS and identical behavior&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;System image file is "flash:c3900-universalk9-mz.SPA.152-1.T1.bin"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco CISCO3945-CHASSIS (revision 1.0) with C3900-SPE150/K9 with 1835264K/261888K&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Technology Package License Information for Module:'c3900'&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;-----------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Technology&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Technology-package&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Technology-package&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Current&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Type&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Next reboot&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;------------------------------------------------------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ipbase&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ipbasek9&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Permanent&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; ipbasek9&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;security&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; securityk9&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Permanent&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; securityk9&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;uc&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;data&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:19:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051264#M438990</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-27T07:19:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051265#M438991</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;I have been doing my homework with this threath and as I knew the implementation of Intra-Zone policies has been available since 15.1&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is what I have found interesting so far:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H3 style="font-size: 1.2em; color: #336666; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 14.393939018249512px; background-color: #ffffff;"&gt;Intrazone Support in the Zone-Based Firewall Application&lt;/H3&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 1.2em;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Intrazone support allows a zone configuration to include users both inside and outside a network. Intrazone support allows traffic inspection between users belonging to the same zone but different networks. Depending on your release, traffic within a zone was allowed to pass uninspected by default. To configure a zone pair definition with the same zone for source and destination, use the zone-pair security command. This allows the functionality of attaching a policy map and inspecting the traffic within the same zone.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 1.2em;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;A href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_data_zbf/configuration/15-2mt/sec-zone-pol-fw.html#GUID-08BAB3A9-DD8A-4656-A887-A38C1EF13512"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/sec_data_zbf/configuration/15-2mt/sec-zone-pol-fw.html#GUID-08BAB3A9-DD8A-4656-A887-A38C1EF13512&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 1.2em;"&gt;So It looks like on the newest version in order to allow traffic from a 2 interfaces on the same zone we need to create an intra-zone policy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 1.2em;"&gt;I also found the following from the great website of Packetlife.com&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; line-height: 1.2em;"&gt;&lt;A href="http://packetlife.net/blog/2012/jan/30/ios-zone-based-firewall/"&gt;http://packetlife.net/blog/2012/jan/30/ios-zone-based-firewall/&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;In early versions of IOS zone-based firewall, traffic flowing from one interface to another within the same security zone was allowed to pass by default. In recent versions, however, even intra-zone traffic requires a zone pair definition (with a single zone as both the source and destination).&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So it will make sense why after I asked you to configure the zone pair it worked &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;Can you configure an intra-zone pair policy and let me know how it goes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;Remember to rate all the helpful posts&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:40:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051265#M438991</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-27T19:40:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051266#M438992</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks, Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I made zone pair with a policy which pass traffi (just pass no inspection) something like this&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;zone-pair security LINE-&amp;gt;LINE source LINE destination LINE&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and traffic starts passing, so I thiks you're right about new IOS and intra-zone pair relations. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It would be grate if I could change this behaviour to default, where rule was:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As soon as an interface is assigned to a zone, traffic will only flow to interfaces in the same zone.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it posible?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051266#M438992</guid>
      <dc:creator>Krasnoperov</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-29T10:22:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ZBF and VRF</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051267#M438993</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Krasnoperov,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If you only have a zone-pair for the intra zone traffic then only traffic from the same zone will be allowed so that should do it for you &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;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Julio&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rate all the helpful posts&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:25:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/zbf-and-vrf/m-p/2051267#M438993</guid>
      <dc:creator>Julio Carvajal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-29T15:25:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

