<?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 PIX FO Question in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551487#M501023</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two PIX units for FO purpose; the 2 units have exaclty identical chassis but the only difference is in the VAC+ module where the primary has VAC+ module whileas the secondary does NOT. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would this affect me from going ahead and implementing the 2 units in FO?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Haitham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:55:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>haithamnofal</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T08:55:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX FO Question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551487#M501023</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have two PIX units for FO purpose; the 2 units have exaclty identical chassis but the only difference is in the VAC+ module where the primary has VAC+ module whileas the secondary does NOT. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Would this affect me from going ahead and implementing the 2 units in FO?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Haitham&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 08:55:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551487#M501023</guid>
      <dc:creator>haithamnofal</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T08:55:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX FO Question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551488#M501024</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Haitam,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't think it will affect the failover, as Cisco does mentioned the failover requirements for both PIX devices only include:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;Same number and type of interfaces &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;Software version &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;Activation key type (DES or 3DES) &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;Flash memory &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;Amount of RAM &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;#149;At least ONE unit with UR license and other FO.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/secursw/ps2120/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008017278a.html#wp1025358" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/secursw/ps2120/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008017278a.html#wp1025358&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rgds,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;AK&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 May 2006 14:55:15 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551488#M501024</guid>
      <dc:creator>a.kiprawih</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-05-28T14:55:15Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX FO Question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551489#M501025</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;On the other hand, Cisco also had the statement stating that this card is integrated with PIX 525 unrestricted (UR) and failover (FO) bundles.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_installation_guide_chapter09186a008017279d.html#wp1045408" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_installation_guide_chapter09186a008017279d.html#wp1045408&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If your FO unit does not have this card, you probably can still run your VPN services via the PIX OS/software feature. But all VPN processing load will be fully handled by PIX. This probably explain why the hardware like VAC+ is not stated as part of the Failover requirements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But I think it is best to have this card in your FO unit to resume or provide site-to-site or remote access VPN services on similar capacity and performance. The VAC+ card is meant to offload and provide high VPN services performance in PIX.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_data_sheet09186a0080091b09.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_data_sheet09186a0080091b09.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;*&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_data_sheet09186a0080210cd9.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_data_sheet09186a0080210cd9.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rgds,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;AK&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 May 2006 04:02:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-fo-question/m-p/551489#M501025</guid>
      <dc:creator>a.kiprawih</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2006-05-29T04:02:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

