<?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 AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution? in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427394#M66892</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello experts,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have 5510 ASA pair (Active/stdby) at the perimeter. For implementing IPS solution, wondering if 4255 is is recomended or AIP-20 SSM modules in ASA5510 would be our better bet. Future internet&amp;nbsp; growth- tops 200Meg (dual 100Meg pipes)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TIA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MS&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:04:18 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mvsheik123</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-10T12:04:18Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427394#M66892</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello experts,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have 5510 ASA pair (Active/stdby) at the perimeter. For implementing IPS solution, wondering if 4255 is is recomended or AIP-20 SSM modules in ASA5510 would be our better bet. Future internet&amp;nbsp; growth- tops 200Meg (dual 100Meg pipes)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TIA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MS&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 12:04:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427394#M66892</guid>
      <dc:creator>mvsheik123</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T12:04:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427395#M66894</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It depends on a few things.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do you want to do in-line IPS or Promiscious mode IDS?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What is the expected traffic volume to be passing thru these sensors?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What you want to be careful about is place a single sensor in-line with dual firewalls. This thread explanes why:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-thread-small" href="https://community.cisco.com/thread/2032810"&gt;https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2032810?tstart=0&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 4255 has twice the processing power of the AIP-SSM20, meaning it can handle twice the traffic. If you are doing promisicous mode detection, a single sensor will be easier to maintain.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Bob&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:03:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427395#M66894</guid>
      <dc:creator>rhermes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-26T17:03:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427396#M66897</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Bob,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for taking my quesry again. The other thread was when I thought of adding a 4255 but later few cisco tech mentioned better to go with AIP module- hence the new thread..;-).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We want to start prmiscous mode (that way we can understand/study the traffic) , then move to in-line. Does AIPs support this way?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I decide finally with 4255, then I may ended up in buying 2 (if place in-line).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;After all the user traffic rerouted to single location, anticipated usage 50-60Meg. Also, we may have upto 200 Meg internet (2x100). &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;TIA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:43:12 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427396#M66897</guid>
      <dc:creator>mvsheik123</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-26T17:43:12Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427397#M66898</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes the AIP-SSM modules support both in-line IPS and Promiscious mode IDS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Bob&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:26:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427397#M66898</guid>
      <dc:creator>rhermes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-26T20:26:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427398#M66899</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again Bob. Also, the port on AIP modules, this is purely for management kind or its a gig (10/100/1000) that can be used as additional port on ASA (ex: DMZ2 etc).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MS&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:59:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427398#M66899</guid>
      <dc:creator>mvsheik123</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-26T20:59:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427399#M66900</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I the ethernet interface on the AIP-SSM modules can only be used for management interface access.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The internal access via the ASA does not allow for the webgui access or event flows, only CLI access.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Bob&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:10:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427399#M66900</guid>
      <dc:creator>rhermes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-26T21:10:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: AIP-20 Vs 4255- Recomended Solution?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427400#M66901</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Great..thank you Bob&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:21:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/aip-20-vs-4255-recomended-solution/m-p/1427400#M66901</guid>
      <dc:creator>mvsheik123</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-07-27T22:21:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

