Heads Up :
The post you are writing will appear in a public forum. Please ensure all content is appropriate for public consumption. Review the employee guidelines for the community here.
Hi all,We have recently established an IPSec tunnel with one of our business partner. The IPSec tunnel was setup but we observed the traffic from our end to our business partner are not put in the tunnel.#pkts encaps: 0, pkts decrypt: 20642, #pkts ve...
Hi,We've a network routing connecting to a MPLS link for our extranet connection to our external business partners. The network traffic are all encrypted using IPSec between us and the external business partners' site, using transport mode.We have a ...
Hi,Recently, we have tried to migrate one of the web services that is fronted by the Cisco ACE 4710 and we observed that some of the HTTP packets were dropped by the ACE 4710 as the maximum parse length (e.g. HTTP header) exceeded the default length ...
Hi,We have a secured web site (HTTPS) currently fronted by Cisco ACE 4170, running version A5(1.2). We are trying to use the http class map to manipulate the traffic flow in the following manner:https://abc.com/ABC/* -> serverfarm#1https://abc.com/* ...
I didn't tried it with Jabber 10.x as the Cisco doc with the optiom to disable Click2X was referring to Jabber 9.7.x.
We uninstall the previous Jabber that was causing the presence issue, verify that the presence info is populated fm LYNC to MS Outl...
Tapan, Thanks. Manage to got it working with Cisco Jabber on Windows (version 9.7.4) with Click2X disabled when install in Phone Mode. Now I have the presence info populated to Outlook and MS Office app from LYNC again.
Yes, we are also facing same issue. Currently using LYNC for IM & Presence. We are not able to roll out Cisco Jabber for Windows (Phone mode) due to this presence information are broken in MS Outlook and Office applications once Cisco Jabber for Wind...
Thank.Actually this document is more applicable to our environment as we require the static NAT for our internal server when communicating with the external party. I'm just puzzle why didn't the router didn't encrypt the traffic even though the NAT a...
Yes, it's a typo. It is" access-list 101 permit ip 10.2.2.0 0.0.0.255 172.2.2.0 0.0.0.255" which shld be suffice for both tcp and udp traffic.Yes, the nat translation is working as i can verify the translation is correct by running "show ip at transl...
