<?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 Firepower 2K Highavailability in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188450#M927792</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello everyone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am trying to deploy a pair of 2Ks with code version 6.2.2 in Highavailability mode.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My wish was to use the Etherchannel subinterfaces to perform this task (to use as Failover links) but those don't appear under the possible interfaces to choose (I only have the physical ones).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this a known bug or maybe feature &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt; ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Isaac Alves&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:21:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>isaacalves27</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T14:21:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Firepower 2K Highavailability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188450#M927792</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello everyone&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am trying to deploy a pair of 2Ks with code version 6.2.2 in Highavailability mode.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My wish was to use the Etherchannel subinterfaces to perform this task (to use as Failover links) but those don't appear under the possible interfaces to choose (I only have the physical ones).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is this a known bug or maybe feature &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt; ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Isaac Alves&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:21:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188450#M927792</guid>
      <dc:creator>isaacalves27</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T14:21:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower 2K Highavailability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188468#M927793</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The failover link (and the optional stateful failover link) must be dedicated connections between the two units.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If they were subinterfaces on an Etherchannel they would not be dedicated and thus that is not a supported configuration.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2017 14:33:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188468#M927793</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-09-23T14:33:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower 2K Highavailability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188473#M927794</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Marvin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your reply.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Following your line of thought I supose that the same goes for a normal trunk port, right?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2017 14:44:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188473#M927794</guid>
      <dc:creator>isaacalves27</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-09-23T14:44:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower 2K Highavailability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188474#M927796</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Correct.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Subinterfaces would still be required on a non-etherchannel trunk so that would also be a non-dedicated interface.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Sep 2017 14:48:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188474#M927796</guid>
      <dc:creator>Marvin Rhoads</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-09-23T14:48:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Firepower 2K Highavailability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188596#M927799</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thank you very much for your support in this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Isaac alves&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 24 Sep 2017 09:26:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/firepower-2k-highavailability/m-p/3188596#M927799</guid>
      <dc:creator>isaacalves27</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-09-24T09:26:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

