<?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: ASA lan-based stateful failover question in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-lan-based-stateful-failover-question/m-p/1246376#M825930</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It does not mean it won't be supported by TAC.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem with a direct crossover cable between the two is that if one device fails or is powered off, what should be the active unit suddenly has it's own stateful interface go down and you will get unexpected results.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:52 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>srue</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-09-29T16:29:52Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA lan-based stateful failover question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-lan-based-stateful-failover-question/m-p/1246375#M825929</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am reading this cisco documentation &lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_configuration_example09186a00807dac5f.shtml" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_configuration_example09186a00807dac5f.shtml&lt;/A&gt; and I have this question regarding Lan-based stateful failover Active/Standby:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;According to the documentation, it stated "Note: Instead of using a crossover Ethernet cable to directly link the units, Cisco recommends that you use a dedicated switch between the primary and secondary units."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does it mean crossover Ethernet cable for directly link is NOT supported by Cisco TAC?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:20:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-lan-based-stateful-failover-question/m-p/1246375#M825929</guid>
      <dc:creator>cisco24x7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T16:20:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA lan-based stateful failover question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-lan-based-stateful-failover-question/m-p/1246376#M825930</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It does not mean it won't be supported by TAC.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The problem with a direct crossover cable between the two is that if one device fails or is powered off, what should be the active unit suddenly has it's own stateful interface go down and you will get unexpected results.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:29:52 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-lan-based-stateful-failover-question/m-p/1246376#M825930</guid>
      <dc:creator>srue</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-09-29T16:29:52Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

