<?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: Riverbed through a PIX in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395397#M728669</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could write an in-path rule so that any traffic destined for the Riverbed behind the PIX is not optimised.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However if you do that you end up crippling the major functionality of the Riverbed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:04:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sean_evershed</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-03-19T11:04:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Riverbed through a PIX</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395396#M728668</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi, does anyone know what's needed to allow a&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Riverbed Steelhead to communicate with it's pa&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;rtner through a PIX running OS 6.3(5).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The tcp-map command for tcp option&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;76 isn't available as in OS 7.0(1) and above&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible at all ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks in advance,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Phil&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:20:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395396#M728668</guid>
      <dc:creator>Philip Brown</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T17:20:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Riverbed through a PIX</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395397#M728669</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could write an in-path rule so that any traffic destined for the Riverbed behind the PIX is not optimised.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However if you do that you end up crippling the major functionality of the Riverbed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:04:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395397#M728669</guid>
      <dc:creator>sean_evershed</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-03-19T11:04:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Riverbed through a PIX</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395398#M728671</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Sean,&amp;nbsp; well, we've&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;already tried that. It allowed the two Riverbeds to communic&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ate with each other, after adding in/outbound rules on the P&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;IX, but as you say, traffic optimiza&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;tion didn't work. It's now been decided to place the&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Riverbed on the Internet side of the PIX.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Phil&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:24:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/riverbed-through-a-pix/m-p/1395398#M728671</guid>
      <dc:creator>Philip Brown</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-03-19T13:24:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

