<?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 EasyVPN in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/easyvpn/m-p/1245900#M949660</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;What are the pro/cons to using Easyvpn in network-extention mode with split-tunneling as opposed to using a regular site-to-site vpn connection.  We have about 70 remote offices with Pix 501s already setup with site-to-site and will be replaceing the 501's with 887 routers. Now the question should we go to easyvpn on these new routers back to our hub ASA or stay site-to-site?  Any info or experiences with this type of conversion would be appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  &lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:38:26 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jogillis</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-02-21T11:38:26Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>EasyVPN</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/easyvpn/m-p/1245900#M949660</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;What are the pro/cons to using Easyvpn in network-extention mode with split-tunneling as opposed to using a regular site-to-site vpn connection.  We have about 70 remote offices with Pix 501s already setup with site-to-site and will be replaceing the 501's with 887 routers. Now the question should we go to easyvpn on these new routers back to our hub ASA or stay site-to-site?  Any info or experiences with this type of conversion would be appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;  &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:38:26 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/easyvpn/m-p/1245900#M949660</guid>
      <dc:creator>jogillis</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T11:38:26Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: EasyVPN</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/easyvpn/m-p/1245901#M949661</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;EZVPNs allow easier provisioning on the client side, as the policy can be 'controlled' from the server head-end. Also the EZVPN client has a auto-connect option, making it more seamless (with regards to connectivity).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When the EZVPN client will connect, it will propose various security policies to the server, so the EZVPN server can choose the Phase1/2 policies. IN a L2L VPN (Direct Encapsulation) both sides need to define the same policy (Manually). The downside is that EZVPN is a Cisco Proprietary technology! If you ever want to phase out the Cisco hardware, you need to re-do the whole thing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Have a look at this link for more details:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A class="jive-link-custom" href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/IPSec_Over.html" target="_blank"&gt;http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/solutions/Enterprise/WAN_and_MAN/IPSec_Over.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please rate if helpful.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Farrukh&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:21:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/easyvpn/m-p/1245901#M949661</guid>
      <dc:creator>Farrukh Haroon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-08-27T15:21:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

