<?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: DMZ design help in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398898#M748664</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the quick response. I'm confident in keeping the current design now since the amount of servers in the DMZ will be limited, thus bandwidth should&amp;nbsp; not be a problem. I appreciate your insight and help. Thanks again. &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="happy" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:33:08 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>joshxworley</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2010-03-01T21:33:08Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>DMZ design help</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398896#M748657</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Currently, we are trying to decide on the best architecture for our DMZ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have an ASA 5520. Our DMZ zone is interface 1/3 on this ASA, and we are using subinterfaces to trunk for VLANs. The two VLANs within the DMZ &lt;STRONG&gt;never&lt;/STRONG&gt; need to communicate with each other.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At one time, we used a layer 3 switch (3560G) and pointed servers in the DMZ to the 3560G as the gateway. Currently, there is a simple switch connected to the ASA on port 1/3, and the servers point to the respective sub-interface IP addresses for the gateway.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What would you suggest for this design? Is there a better method?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:15:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398896#M748657</guid>
      <dc:creator>joshxworley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T17:15:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: DMZ design help</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398897#M748659</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;PRE __jive_macro_name="quote" class="jive_text_macro jive_macro_quote"&gt;&lt;P&gt;joshxworley wrote:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently, we are trying to decide on the best architecture for our DMZ.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have an ASA 5520. Our DMZ zone is interface 1/3 on this ASA, and we are using subinterfaces to trunk for VLANs. The two VLANs within the DMZ &lt;STRONG&gt;never&lt;/STRONG&gt; need to communicate with each other.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;At one time, we used a layer 3 switch (3560G) and pointed servers in the DMZ to the 3560G as the gateway. Currently, there is a simple switch connected to the ASA on port 1/3, and the servers point to the respective sub-interface IP addresses for the gateway.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What would you suggest for this design? Is there a better method?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Joshua&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What yo have now is far better than what you had with the 3560G switch. You do not want to route within a DMZ so having subinterfaces on the ASA is a far more secure solution. I'm assuming you are using subinterfaces because you don't have enough physical intefaces ? It doesn't really matter too much but bear in mind that with subinterfacesyou are actually spliting the bandwidth of the physical interface between mutiple vlans.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However as long as you are not getting any congestion issues then you should be fine,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:25:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398897#M748659</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jon Marshall</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-03-01T19:25:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: DMZ design help</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398898#M748664</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Jon,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you for the quick response. I'm confident in keeping the current design now since the amount of servers in the DMZ will be limited, thus bandwidth should&amp;nbsp; not be a problem. I appreciate your insight and help. Thanks again. &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="happy" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.cisco.com/images/emoticons/happy.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:33:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/dmz-design-help/m-p/1398898#M748664</guid>
      <dc:creator>joshxworley</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2010-03-01T21:33:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

