<?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: NAC failover in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672305#M777350</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Sathappan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From your experience what is the Best Practice you would suggest for a situation where we are contemplating having a failover pair of CAMs, one CAM each located 25 miles apart?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it better to have the pair physically in one location and connected by both serial and ethernet1?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or can we assume that we have a healthy amount of network level resiliency and fault tolerance between the two CAMs and we won't encounter situations where we have an Active-Active situation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:11:47 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pmccubbin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-04-08T17:11:47Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NAC failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672304#M777347</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I need a clarification on failover of CAM /CAS. can i use a Wanlink for the failover connection instead of a serial cable or a cross over cable when the two NAC appliances are kept apart.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Also can I use certificates in addition to authentication types like RADIUS, LDAP etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;can somebody help me&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sathappan.s &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:21:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672304#M777347</guid>
      <dc:creator>sathappan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T09:21:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAC failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672305#M777350</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Sathappan,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;From your experience what is the Best Practice you would suggest for a situation where we are contemplating having a failover pair of CAMs, one CAM each located 25 miles apart?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it better to have the pair physically in one location and connected by both serial and ethernet1?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or can we assume that we have a healthy amount of network level resiliency and fault tolerance between the two CAMs and we won't encounter situations where we have an Active-Active situation.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Paul&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:11:47 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672305#M777350</guid>
      <dc:creator>pmccubbin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-04-08T17:11:47Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NAC failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672306#M777353</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Paul,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can't have the both the CAM separated apart. This feature as far as I know, hasnot been added to NAC. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both the CAM should be in a single location. Ethernet connection for failover is more than enough.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;HTH&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;sathappan&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 17:41:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/nac-failover/m-p/672306#M777353</guid>
      <dc:creator>sathappan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-04-08T17:41:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

