<?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 sub-interface address feature in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-sub-interface-address-feature/m-p/139346#M604898</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I need your valuable suggestion and comments whether the following solution will work based on the PIX 6.3 OS code.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Two Internet links connected to the same service provider on a single cisco router.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. PIX Outside interface and Internet router LAN ports with dual IP addresses representing one of the range of IP addresses of each link.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. Inside users accessing the Internet NATed at PIX through one of the valid IP address range.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4. Outside users accessing the web/email services through the registered IP address range of which the router and PIx will also be a part.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to know whether such a solution will work and are there any pitfalls? Appreciate your reply. Thanks &amp;amp; regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Murali&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:47:20 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>murali.sethuraman</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T06:47:20Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX sub-interface address feature</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-sub-interface-address-feature/m-p/139346#M604898</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello All,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I need your valuable suggestion and comments whether the following solution will work based on the PIX 6.3 OS code.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Two Internet links connected to the same service provider on a single cisco router.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. PIX Outside interface and Internet router LAN ports with dual IP addresses representing one of the range of IP addresses of each link.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. Inside users accessing the Internet NATed at PIX through one of the valid IP address range.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4. Outside users accessing the web/email services through the registered IP address range of which the router and PIx will also be a part.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I want to know whether such a solution will work and are there any pitfalls? Appreciate your reply. Thanks &amp;amp; regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Murali&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:47:20 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-sub-interface-address-feature/m-p/139346#M604898</guid>
      <dc:creator>murali.sethuraman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T06:47:20Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX sub-interface address feature</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-sub-interface-address-feature/m-p/139347#M604899</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;If your web/email servers are going to be in the DMZ, then this may be tough to do. This is because you can have only one default route in the PIX, so everything will end up going out the same circuit.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Anyone have any ideas?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jun 2003 13:58:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-sub-interface-address-feature/m-p/139347#M604899</guid>
      <dc:creator>tbissett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-06-09T13:58:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

