<?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 Re: PIX 515E Failover in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223752#M620491</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Makes perfect sense, thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Colin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:27:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>thebigc</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2003-11-14T10:27:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX 515E Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223750#M620458</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Having just read a doc regarding how failover is implemented on PIX 515Es - I noticed something that I'm hoping somebody out there will have a good answer for:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"It is recommended that you connect the Primary and Secondary PIXes with a dedicated switch. Do not use crossover cables."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is talking about the LAN failover link and the Stateful failover link. What I want to know is why it is not recommended and what the issue is with using crossover cables?  Surely putting in another switch to connect the units introduces a point of failure that isn't required?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;FYI the doc I'm refering to is &lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note09186a0080094ea7.shtml#before" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note09186a0080094ea7.shtml#before&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Colin&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 07:06:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223750#M620458</guid>
      <dc:creator>thebigc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T07:06:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX 515E Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223751#M620474</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Sure, that switch could be another point of failure.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But think about this, the failover will occur when the lan failover interface loses carrier.  If you are using a crossover cable, and one of your pix's goes to toast, what happens with the other pix's ethernet interface?  If you are using a crossover cable, it will see the interface down as well.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Big problem...the stateful lan failover link needs to have a connection up..hence, the reason for the switch.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe not the best explanation..but you get the idea ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2003 23:14:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223751#M620474</guid>
      <dc:creator>jlebaron</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-11-13T23:14:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX 515E Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223752#M620491</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Makes perfect sense, thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Colin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:27:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-515e-failover/m-p/223752#M620491</guid>
      <dc:creator>thebigc</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2003-11-14T10:27:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

