Hi mate, not sure if it's the same but we could try since i had almost the same problem. Change the network cable that goes from your cisco fw to the modem. I tried 3 different fw and also computers. All linked up with gigabit connection. But for some reason the rv180 did not. I got myself an brand new cat6 cable and voila, i got full speed. The rv180 was very picky with the cable. Please try changing to a new cat6 and see it that solves your problem.   Unlikely i know, but hey its and small business unit ;) ... View more

Hi Peter Im sorry to say that Cisco's 130 mbit vpn numbers are pure technical mumbo jumbo. Those speed are messured in a labb and will likely never ever be achived. Another post to confirm this is found here where an cisco tech actualy explains why https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3913812#3913812 I also got the ISA for it's fast ipsec vpn. I wanted to max out two sites that has 100 mbit up and down. However i only achive 70-73 mbit using site-to-site vpn. From my experience you can actualy cut cisco's vpn spec's in 2 or 3 to get Real World Scenario numbers. I have benchmarked alot of models from both the RV, ISA, ASA series. Google is your friend here... If you need 100 mbit speed over the ipsec tunnel im afraid almost all manufactures mid/medium size bussiness firewalls will let you down. Almost all have some kind of note technical note saying messure in labb or with xxx packet size. To achive 100 mbit up / down using ipsec the cpu will need to be realy fast like a desktop or server cpu to handle the encryption / decryption. Forget bultin low end cpu's arm, intel, atom etc. Aim for Intel dual/quad core with +2.0 GHZ. I benchamarked and 100 mbit ipsec tunnel using an virtual firewall in esxi and noticed the cpu got taxed around 2.0 - 2,5 GHZ to achive the 100 mbit speed. Forget the low end asa line like 5505 and 5510 you will need min 5520 or better. When i researched the subject i fast learned that i eighter need to get high end enterprise firewalls for $$$$$$$ or build my own using an desktop computer with a fast cpu. Long storry short. I turned to a pfsense box from hacom with a quad core intel cpu. Now i can easy push over 100 mbit "REAL" speed over the tunnel and the box will do 8's around most of the enterprise firewalls costing 4-10 times more. If you need a comparision chart find it here http://www.hacom.net/kb/comparison-between-hacom-pfsense-appliances-and-cisco-asa-firewalls Sorry i don't got more for you. It's a jungle out there and i for sure did not want to spend more money and get let down of the technical mumbo jumbo spec's and realised i did not get the promised speed. Don't get me wrong, cisco makes great firewalls but they don't deliver the technical data like ipsec speed that are announced, thats the sales department making the device look attractive. However they are functions rich and mostly perform well. ... View more

Hi Alex Those damn plc are pita to configure and usally does not have anything caled "default gateway" lol I have faced almost same scenario for a client in another country. Where i solved it as described by Shawn, set an virtual managment computer at the clients location. You can also check with your software support if the licens terms allows you to clone the physical computer to virtual. Some license terms allows you to do run the software in the same virtual pc, but only one computer, virtual of physical is allowed to be powerd on and use the softtware. Then doing rdp or teamviewer to that client to program the plc. BR ... View more

Hi if you want cisco and ips the isa line is your best bet. If your on a tight budget i think you need to eighter check for refurbished ones or go opensource. I recommend you check the following link http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/security/security-howto/31406-build-your-own-ids-firewall-with-pfsense BR ... View more

Hi mate. I can confirm my own findings with the SSL VPN not working on the RV220 in Windows 8. I belive the same fw is used for your firewall. I checked every settings back and forth in IE and still did not make it work. . The problem has something to do with ie10 running in protected mode. You need to have this setting enable to be able to get the first confirmation of installation of the ssl vpn client software. However you will not be able to make the next check where the software actualy runs because of this. This seems to me that there is something wrong in the firmware since you are unable to pass the two check and run the software. I verified this on both x86 and x64 Win8. On WIN7 the ssl vpn runs just fine. Since i abandone the sinking rv line for the isa line and switched to anyconnect i did not bother any more. Sorry i don't got more for you but atleast i can confirm that you are not alone on this. ... View more

Im sorry to say that i have the same settings but the issue is still there. The setting the notify and drop helped me some, but still alot of people have the "bugg" where we lose contact to the servers and antivirus is sometimes offline. If this has not happend to you thats great, shows not all the devices are affected. You can start with trying download the eicar file once every day for a week. For me the antivirus is offline 6 of 7 times. When i have tried the file 2-3 times it will come online and stay online for atleast the rest of the day. Next day when i try its the same thing again. Hoping the next firmware will fix this. Right now i see no reason to have antivirus enabled on my devices since it will let some virus in the network making it unusable. ... View more

Could be an new upgraded model that replaces the RV220 series ? If you need fast ipsec and site-to-site performance the RV220 is a good deal. It's one of the fastes in it's line. However with all the buggs in the RV line i switched to the ISA series and have not looked back. That is one solid work horse for sure. Still the ISA hits a spot in upper SMB segment. The RV line hits a spot in the lower SMB segment. And the RV220 and probably the RV320 if released i gues will hit the High end, of the low end SMB segment. I would like to see an good replacement for the RV220 that has it's spec's and most likely better performance and still cheaper than the ISA series. I do hope it's someway spec'ed with ISA hardware and without all the security services like online virus scanning. That would be one great device for remote offices that need fast site-to-site vpn throughput. One can only speculate since no technical data is to be found. ... View more

@Shawn belive it was me Im using policy based routing for one of my DMZ zones and it works great. Here is how i have it setup Network --> Dual Wan Settings Routing table (checked) Policy based routing (checked) Networking --> Routing --> Static Routing Click "Add" Check "Setting as default route" Select your WAN1 interface Networking --> Routing --> Policy Based Routing Click "Add" On the "From" setting use the zone you want, i have dmz here. Select the other options as you like. For start i would leave it default to se that it works On "Route to" select WAN2 Finished Any device connected to my dmz will have ALL its traffic routed out from WAN2. Checking with a computer i get my public wan2 ip adress, success... BR ... View more

Im using an HP Elitebook with Windows 8 and connecting to ISA570 WiFi without no problem. ... View more

This may or may not apply to your scenario. I have however noticed that the security services goes offline sometimes. For me it's more often it's offline then online for some reason. I have tried the eicar test file 1 time every day and 6 off 7 days i can download it. However after i have tried 2-3 times the security services starts and the 3-4 time it will be blocked. If i reboot my isa it will block it If i disable the security service and then enable it, it will block it. But this is not normal conditions since you can't do that everyday to get expected services that you pay for. This is unacceptable for sure and shows that there is something wrong with the service. There is a long post about it located here https://supportforums.cisco.com/thread/2195789?tstart=0 Where the problem has been identified and should be fixed for the next firmware update. ... View more

I have now used the ISA for 1 month an i can say that this is a great device without no doubt. Before the ISA i used the RV series for +2 years and i was not happy about it. Bad support, bad firmware, long times between fw updates. Basic functions did not work. All kind of strange things was happening to my RV series. I was almost ready to give up, and would never bought the ISA until i read the review on smallnetbuilder. I noticed that TeamF1 who wrote the crappy firmware for the RV series was not in the picture for the ISA series. Ok great, so how good can it be then? Well i bought one isa and i must say that my overall impression is that the firmware and it's functions is well designed and tested. Basic and advanced things works the way the are supposed to. The unit is powerful and can take a lot of users. Cisco put there act togheter and finaly brought an product in the smb segment that i could recommend in my business to clients. That was not the case with the rv series i can tell you that. My opinion after trying most brands like netgear fvs,srxn,utm, zyxell zywall, usg, cisco rv series is that the ISA series will give you alot for your money. And also less frustration and headace. BR from a happy ISA user =) ... View more

Hi Alberto i got the same scenario working using the SSL VPN client on the RV series. I have not got this setup working using cisco's ipsec vpn client or anyconnect. Only for ssl vpn. On site1 you have an site-to-site vpn policy that connects site1 to site2. That policy is made up of one ike policy and one vpn policy. The same would apply for site2. Now since i have not used the SA series im not sure it will work but you can try it. On site1 configure the ssl vpn client. For IP adress or ssl vpn pool use another ip adress range that are not beeing used be eighter site 1 or 2. EX: Site1 192.168.1.0 Site2 192.168.2.0 SSL VPN Pool: 192.168.100.0 On site1 do the following. Add a new VPN Policy ( VPN -> IPSec -> VPN Policies) Use the same setting that your first policy has Except for the IP Adress range for local network, change that to match the ssl vpn pool. Make sure that you select the same IKE policy that connect site1 to site2. Save. Now you should have the following on site1 1 ike policy 2 vpn policies. ---> 1 vpn policy with the local network of site1 and remote network of site2 (This is your original working policy) ---> 1 vpn policy with the local network of the ssl vpn pool of site1, and remote network of site2 Now you need to add an vpn policy to site2. On site2 do the following Add a new VPN Policy ( VPN -> IPSec -> VPN Policies) Use the same setting that your first policy has Except for the IP Adress range for REMOTE network, change that to match the ssl vpn pool.Make sure that you select the same IKE policy that connect site2 to site1. Save. Now you should have the following on site2 1 ike policy 2 vpn policies. ---> 1 vpn policy with the local network of site2 and remote network of site1 (This is your original working policy) ---> 1 vpn policy with the local network of site2, and remote network of ssl vpn pool for site1 If you are using split vpn tunneling, add the route for the ssl vpn pool on the firewall of site1. Connect to site1 and login and start the ssl vpn client. Try first with full vpn tunnel to see if it works. BR ... View more

I was hoping that it should but im not able to change it anyways. In short i was hoping that the isa team had overseen this scenario and could add this feature to allow the user to change the default behavour of the automaticly created firewall rule, when using policy based routing. BR ... View more

Hi and thanks for helping. 1) Yes that would be the correct design from that type of scenario 2) Im already using routing table but that does not solve the problem im afraid. Basicly i have 1 modem in bridge mode with 4ports in it. Any device connected to the modem will recive an public ip adress. What i wanted to achive is to have Anyconnect running on port 443 by default. Users will connect to vpn.domain.com and will hit WAN1 on the ISA an be able to login. Also i have a webserver using port 80 and 443. If a user hit www.mydomain.com they will hit WAN2 and redirected to the webserver in the dmz. I dont have or need any failover functions. I understand the design when using dual wan with failover. But when i use routing table and have policy based routing i think the users should be able to chose what ports get redirected by default. Unless i have totaly missed something i don't see how i can make this work. BR ... View more