<?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 Connecting PIX Inside Interface in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/connecting-pix-inside-interface/m-p/86052#M618595</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a FLAT Inside network with all users and Servers in the same Subnet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While connecting PIX Inside interface &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Should i connect it to a different subnet and then route using a Router, to Block un-necassary broadcast being sent to PIX Interface ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Or i can connect it directly to the Inside network (i.e IP address in the same subnet). As long as i have Access-List on the inside interface blocking un-necassary traffic, in that case the PIX CPU cycle won't be over loaded ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanx \\ Naman&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:22:12 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mnlatif</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T06:22:12Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Connecting PIX Inside Interface</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/connecting-pix-inside-interface/m-p/86052#M618595</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a FLAT Inside network with all users and Servers in the same Subnet.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;While connecting PIX Inside interface &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. Should i connect it to a different subnet and then route using a Router, to Block un-necassary broadcast being sent to PIX Interface ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Or i can connect it directly to the Inside network (i.e IP address in the same subnet). As long as i have Access-List on the inside interface blocking un-necassary traffic, in that case the PIX CPU cycle won't be over loaded ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanx \\ Naman&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 06:22:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/connecting-pix-inside-interface/m-p/86052#M618595</guid>
      <dc:creator>mnlatif</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T06:22:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Connecting PIX Inside Interface</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/connecting-pix-inside-interface/m-p/86053#M618601</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Naman,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would go with choice 2, no need for the additional purchase.  Typically your pix will have a higher processer and more memory than your router would and therefore would have less impact.  There shouldnt be any significant impact on the pix from your lan.  Pix will drop broadcast, so it doesnt really see them so there should be no impact on your cpu.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kurtis Durrett&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:05:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/connecting-pix-inside-interface/m-p/86053#M618601</guid>
      <dc:creator>kdurrett</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2002-11-14T17:05:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

