<?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 logical interfaces in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348293#M551159</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Would the following be correct? -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) PIX will support logical interfaces - but the frames will (no way around it) then be tagged .1Q.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) Hence, coordinating with ISP's to encapsulate their frames will not be fun.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rick&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rsommer</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:58:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX logical interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348293#M551159</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Would the following be correct? -&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(1) PIX will support logical interfaces - but the frames will (no way around it) then be tagged .1Q.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;(2) Hence, coordinating with ISP's to encapsulate their frames will not be fun.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rick&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348293#M551159</guid>
      <dc:creator>rsommer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:58:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX logical interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348294#M551160</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rick,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The PIX would have to have the physical interface connected to a switchport configured as a dot1q trunk.  Within the switch, define the VLAN's appropriate to what is configured for logical interfaces within the PIX.  Each connection to an ISP would then get connected to the switch and the specific switchport would be placed in the appropriate VLAN.  As long as the switchport that the ISP connects to is not a trunk port, there will be no tagged frames to worry about being sent to the ISP's.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Steve&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:55:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348294#M551160</guid>
      <dc:creator>sstudsdahl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-23T20:55:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX logical interfaces</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348295#M551161</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks - that's a duh on my part.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 21:30:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-logical-interfaces/m-p/348295#M551161</guid>
      <dc:creator>rsommer</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-23T21:30:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

