<?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: IDSM placement and redundancy question in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012810#M79686</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;These are two IDSM-2s connected to slot four and give of the same chassis. We are running  FWSM &amp;gt;&amp;gt; MSFC OUTSIDE setup. All InterVLAN traffic is evaluated first by the IDSM than by the FWSM. Users default gateway is the FWSM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here you go:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 management-port access-vlan 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 management-port access-vlan 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 data-port 1 channel-group 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 data-port 2 channel-group 6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 data-port 1 channel-group 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 data-port 2 channel-group 6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 trunk allowed-vlan 200-204,208&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 trunk allowed-vlan 708&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 autostate include&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 portfast enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 trunk allowed-vlan 260,280,400,401&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 trunk allowed-vlan 111-114&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 autostate include&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 portfast enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:37:40 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-06-24T10:37:40Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012807#M79683</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi, Does the IDSM-2 support any sort of redundancy protocol?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can't see anything in the config guide.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If I wanted to place a redundant pair on the outside of a pair of firewalls, how would I manage the redundancy of them.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My other question is, is it better to place the IDSM on the outside of external facing firewalls or on the inside?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many Thanks, Dom&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 10 Mar 2019 11:09:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012807#M79683</guid>
      <dc:creator>d-fillmore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-10T11:09:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012808#M79684</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;The IDSM-2 supportes redundancy through the etherchannel protocol. I can send you a sample config if you want.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;IPS systems are generally placed behind firewalls because they have more throughput challenges than firewalls and by virtue of being behind the firewall they have to filter/scan less traffic.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:35:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012808#M79684</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-22T14:35:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012809#M79685</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yeah that'd be great if you could.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many Thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Dom&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:46:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012809#M79685</guid>
      <dc:creator>d-fillmore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-24T09:46:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012810#M79686</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;These are two IDSM-2s connected to slot four and give of the same chassis. We are running  FWSM &amp;gt;&amp;gt; MSFC OUTSIDE setup. All InterVLAN traffic is evaluated first by the IDSM than by the FWSM. Users default gateway is the FWSM.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here you go:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 management-port access-vlan 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 management-port access-vlan 100&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 data-port 1 channel-group 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 4 data-port 2 channel-group 6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 data-port 1 channel-group 5&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection module 5 data-port 2 channel-group 6&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 trunk allowed-vlan 200-204,208&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 trunk allowed-vlan 708&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 autostate include&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 5 portfast enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 trunk allowed-vlan 260,280,400,401&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 trunk allowed-vlan 111-114&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 autostate include&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;intrusion-detection port-channel 6 portfast enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:37:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012810#M79686</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-24T10:37:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012811#M79687</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your response Farrukh, I don't think I was clear enough in my original post. I meant chassis to chassis redundancy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My client insists on putting the IDSMs on the outside of the firewall, in front of a pair of FWSMs (in seperate chassis).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe there isn't a need for a HA relationship between the IDSMs as the active FWSM will ensure that the traffic flows through one of the IDSMs and no the other?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Cheers, Dom&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:15:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012811#M79687</guid>
      <dc:creator>d-fillmore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-24T15:15:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012812#M79688</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please see the attached file for some design guidelines.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:22:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012812#M79688</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-25T19:22:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IDSM placement and redundancy question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012813#M79689</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Many thanks Farrukh, That's very useful &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:00:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/idsm-placement-and-redundancy-question/m-p/1012813#M79689</guid>
      <dc:creator>d-fillmore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-26T13:00:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

