<?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 IPS will support Filover?(Active/Stanby mode) in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685253#M56651</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Not in the same way the Cisco Firewalls support failover. There is no synchronization of TCP state between two IPS sensors placed in a High Availability pair. This become a problem if you have a dual rail HA environment that is Active/Active (traffic flowing on both rails) and traffic is allowed to flow asynchronously (a single TCP session can leave via one rail and return via the other). Cisco sensors do not perform well when they can not track TCP state.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As far as I've seen, only McAfee IPS sensors have state synchronization failover as a feature, although Tippingpoint sensors are well suited for single sensors in asynchronously routed environments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:53:22 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>rhermes</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-07-15T14:53:22Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IPS will support Filover?(Active/Stanby mode)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685252#M56649</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any one knows cisco IPS support failover(active/stanby)?.Please let me know !!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rajeswar.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:24:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685252#M56649</guid>
      <dc:creator>haivrajesh</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T12:24:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IPS will support Filover?(Active/Stanby mode)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685253#M56651</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Not in the same way the Cisco Firewalls support failover. There is no synchronization of TCP state between two IPS sensors placed in a High Availability pair. This become a problem if you have a dual rail HA environment that is Active/Active (traffic flowing on both rails) and traffic is allowed to flow asynchronously (a single TCP session can leave via one rail and return via the other). Cisco sensors do not perform well when they can not track TCP state.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As far as I've seen, only McAfee IPS sensors have state synchronization failover as a feature, although Tippingpoint sensors are well suited for single sensors in asynchronously routed environments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:53:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685253#M56651</guid>
      <dc:creator>rhermes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-07-15T14:53:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IPS will support Filover?(Active/Stanby mode)</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685254#M56653</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Simply, IPS is a layer 2 device, there is no HA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:31:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/ips-will-support-filover-active-stanby-mode/m-p/1685254#M56653</guid>
      <dc:creator>Shaikh Aman Uddin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-07-15T18:31:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

