<?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 Multiple PIX Statics in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316295#M551524</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does the PIX 'static' command use a shortest-match-first rule, in a similar way to route table lookups?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example is this a valid configurattion for two-way static:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;----------------SNIP-------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (DMZ,outside) 10.11.1.0 10.11.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) 10.11.0.0 10.11.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;----------------SNIP-------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Where 10.11.1.0/24 is the DMZ network?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:57:54 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>marcus.nutting</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:57:54Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316295#M551524</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi all,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does the PIX 'static' command use a shortest-match-first rule, in a similar way to route table lookups?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;For example is this a valid configurattion for two-way static:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;----------------SNIP-------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (DMZ,outside) 10.11.1.0 10.11.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) 10.11.0.0 10.11.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;----------------SNIP-------------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Where 10.11.1.0/24 is the DMZ network?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:57:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316295#M551524</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcus.nutting</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:57:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316296#M551525</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;With PIX version 6.2 , PIX doesnot go with best match rule like route table lookup, it does like which ever comes first So if u want to match a specific entry then put it above the less specific entry.As you have that entry in above example so all 10.11.1.0 will be matched first.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;   But suppose if you put like this --&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) 10.11.0.0 10.11.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 0 0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (DMZ,outside) 10.11.1.0 10.11.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 0 0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then it will get matched with first one always.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sachin Jain&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:21:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316296#M551525</guid>
      <dc:creator>sachin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-15T14:21:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316297#M551526</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi thanks for the reply,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that the same for FWSM 2.3(1)?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also, how do I insert statics above existing statics in a production config?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I don't want to rremove the existing line:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;---------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;static (inside,outside) 10.11.0.0 10.11.0.0 netmask 255.255.0.0 0 0 &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;---------------&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:42:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316297#M551526</guid>
      <dc:creator>marcus.nutting</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-15T15:42:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316298#M551527</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, the same rule applies to both PIX software as well as FWSM software.  First match in the list wins with static statements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately, there is no way to add static statements higher in the list without re-applying them in the order you want.  The existing translations are not cleared by removing the statics statements.  You would need to issue a 'clear xlate' to clear the existing translations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:59:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316298#M551527</guid>
      <dc:creator>scoclayton</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-15T15:59:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316299#M551528</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, the same rule applies to both PIX software as well as FWSM software.  First match in the list wins with static statements.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Unfortunately, there is no way to add static statements higher in the list without re-applying them in the order you want.  The existing translations are not cleared by removing the statics statements.  You would need to issue a 'clear xlate' to clear the existing translations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Scott&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:00:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316299#M551528</guid>
      <dc:creator>scoclayton</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-15T16:00:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Multiple PIX Statics</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316300#M551529</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please give ratings  It will help others also.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:53:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/multiple-pix-statics/m-p/316300#M551529</guid>
      <dc:creator>sachin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2005-02-16T08:53:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

