<?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 to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration in Network Security</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386789#M957341</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;The Meraki MX has no configuration for "same-security-traffic", it is allowed by default.&amp;nbsp;The most important shortcoming is the lack of AnyConnect-support on the&amp;nbsp;MX. You can use the build-in VPN-Clients of the operating-systems, but that is not as comfortable as it was with ASA/AnyConnect.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 08:05:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-05-22T08:05:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386458#M957340</link>
      <description>&lt;DIV class="lia-message-subject lia-component-message-view-widget-subject"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-message-body lia-component-body-signature-highlight-escalation" id="messageBodySimpleDisplay"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-message-body-content"&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Hello all,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We are looking to migrate clients from ASA5505s to something newer.&amp;nbsp; We initially tried Cisco RV320/340 but this does not seem to be a stable platform and these firewalls have their share of issues and shortcomings. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;We are getting ready to test Meraki MX64s and understand that the IPSEC site to site and client to site is supported. &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;One issue with the RV340 that we tested was connecting to client to site VPN and then using resources on the other side of a site to site VPN.&amp;nbsp; This is accomplished on the ASA by using &lt;SPAN&gt;the same-security-traffic command however there was no equivalent on the RV340&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;see post below&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/small-business-routers/rv340-equivalent-to-asa-same-security-traffic-command/td-p/3385697" target="_blank"&gt;https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/small-business-routers/rv340-equivalent-to-asa-same-security-traffic-command/td-p/3385697&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Note it is not possible by just using split tunneling.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Does anyone know whether Meraki MX64 supports functionality equivalent to&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;same-security-traffic command &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;p.s. we understand that SonicWALL is an option but we have lots of clients that have multiple sites and the upgrade path would be more painful&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-panel lia-panel-standard MessageTagsTaplet Chrome lia-component-message-view-widget-tags"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-decoration-border"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-decoration-border-top"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-decoration-border-content"&gt;
&lt;DIV&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-panel-heading-bar-wrapper"&gt;
&lt;DIV class="lia-panel-heading-bar"&gt;&lt;SPAN class="lia-panel-heading-bar-title"&gt;Everyone's tags &lt;SPAN class="lia-panel-heading-bar-count"&gt;(0)&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;
&lt;/DIV&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:47:38 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386458#M957340</guid>
      <dc:creator>TekResults</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-21T15:47:38Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386789#M957341</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The Meraki MX has no configuration for "same-security-traffic", it is allowed by default.&amp;nbsp;The most important shortcoming is the lack of AnyConnect-support on the&amp;nbsp;MX. You can use the build-in VPN-Clients of the operating-systems, but that is not as comfortable as it was with ASA/AnyConnect.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 08:05:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386789#M957341</guid>
      <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-22T08:05:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386799#M957342</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I know that it is not what you are asking, but I would upgrade to an ASA 5506-X/5508-X with Firepower Services, depending on traffic and throughput needed.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;You get all the functionality you need for site-to-site and user (AnyConnect) VPNs and you also get one of the top IPS solutions in the market!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2018 08:33:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3386799#M957342</guid>
      <dc:creator>AlexPi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-22T08:33:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387529#M957343</link>
      <description>Hi Alex,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Did you happen to test Meraki's MX IPS functionality?&lt;BR /&gt;I am debating between MX100 and 5525X for setup where only IPS inspection is required (so the appliance will be deployed in bridge/transparent mode).</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 08:34:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387529#M957343</guid>
      <dc:creator>Florin Barhala</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T08:34:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387567#M957344</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have a couple of both devices running and there is one&amp;nbsp;major difference:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;IPS on the MX is a simple switch-on with the choice of Security/Balanced/Connectivity&amp;nbsp;IPS&amp;nbsp;rulesets. You don't really tune your IPS, but if there are false positives you can adapt the IPS to it. With that, the management of the IPS is very easy.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;When using the ASA for IPS, I today would install it with the FTD image&amp;nbsp;where you configure it with a local management-server (FMC). The system is highly tunable but that&amp;nbsp;can become quite challenging to configure. A real good feature is that this tuning can be done in an automated way (for the brave admins).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Conclusion: If you have limited IPS-knowledge and/or limited time to tune the IPS, then the MX could give you a better solution. If you are willing to invest time and knowledge, you can get more security from the Firepower IPS.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 09:38:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387567#M957344</guid>
      <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T09:38:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387602#M957345</link>
      <description>That's good to know! &lt;BR /&gt;Can you share some thoughts about reporting part also? Anything special on any of the two options?</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 10:39:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387602#M957345</guid>
      <dc:creator>Florin Barhala</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T10:39:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387612#M957346</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Reporting is quite powerful on both solutions. In Meraki MX, the reports are not as customizable as in FMC, but again easier to prepare.&amp;nbsp;FMC has extensive reporting capabilities, but more special reports are sometimes not that easy to build.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 11:00:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387612#M957346</guid>
      <dc:creator>Karsten Iwen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T11:00:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387636#M957347</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hey Florin,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/325766"&gt;@Karsten Iwen&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;basically replied to what you were asking!&amp;nbsp;In my opinion,&amp;nbsp;if you want real enterprise perimeter firewall with detailed customized IPS (knowing SNORT can help) and reporting, definitely the ASA 55xx-X with Firepower is the way to go. It will definitely though not be as easy to setup and run as would be the Meraki MX.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 11:58:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387636#M957347</guid>
      <dc:creator>AlexPi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T11:58:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ASA to Cisco Meraki MX64 migration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387663#M957348</link>
      <description>Thanks for the input guys!</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2018 12:34:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-security/asa-to-cisco-meraki-mx64-migration/m-p/3387663#M957348</guid>
      <dc:creator>Florin Barhala</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-05-23T12:34:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

