<?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 Long Distance Failover in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3364#M689158</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would venture to say this is only for service providers that already have redundant routes configured to remote WAN connections.  I can&amp;#146;t see any reason Medium sized or small sized businesses would need this.  Can anyone else think of a reason?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>smahbub</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2001-02-26T14:58:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>PIX Long Distance Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3363#M689133</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cisco announced PIX Long Distance Failover function.  But how can one currently used two distant PIXs (different locations) in Failover mode?  I heard spoken about a solution using modems!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for your assistance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Laurent&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 05:47:02 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3363#M689133</guid>
      <dc:creator>ldurussel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T05:47:02Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX Long Distance Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3364#M689158</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would venture to say this is only for service providers that already have redundant routes configured to remote WAN connections.  I can&amp;#146;t see any reason Medium sized or small sized businesses would need this.  Can anyone else think of a reason?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:58:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3364#M689158</guid>
      <dc:creator>smahbub</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-02-26T14:58:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: PIX Long Distance Failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3365#M689195</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It should work if you let a pair of  router on the inside with a pair of router on the outside talk BGP with each other and let BGP take care of the failover (PIXes do not run in failover mode). This Failover will obviously not be statefull.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2001 12:41:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/pix-long-distance-failover/m-p/3365#M689195</guid>
      <dc:creator>rremenyi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2001-03-06T12:41:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

