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.
Cisco has set the status of this bug to "fixed." Yet all of the fixed releases are older releases that didn't contain the bug. How does this constitute a "fixed" bug in current, up-to-date, and security patched releases?
Our secondary FMCv is off site in a separate data center for better redundancy. There is a need to migrate the secondary FMCv to a new data center. The primary and secondary FMCv communicate with each other over a site-to-site VPN, so the IP address...
Hello, and thank you for any assistance.
We currently have a l2l VPN established from our ASA to a phone service provider where all traffic from our PAT address that is destined to the service provider's public addresses is tunneled. The phone ser...
We are not using ISE, but we are using the Cisco Secure Client for VPN access. We use the Dynamic Access Policy (DAP) to assess the posture of our endpoints before they connect and inspect for things like an authorized certificate as well as the ins...
We have a couple of 1010's and at one point the Anyconnect packages became larger than what FMC could deploy. I believe we used the workaround in this bug report: CSCwi86503We are now on 7.2.8 FTD and FMC code and our 1010 devices seem to behave as ...
Thanks to this thread, I was able to halt the upgrade to ESXi 8.0 a short time ago before it became an issue with our FMCv. I've reviewed the compatibility matrix many times when updating FMCv, but I luckily checked it before others on our team were...
I've got an 1140 HA pair and the active unit throws this same warning every few days and seems to clear up on it's own after a while each time. I haven't opened a TAC case yet, but it would be helpful to know what is safe to delete from that directo...
