RE: [fw-wiz] PIX 500 as ROUTER ONLY
From: Wes Noonan (mailinglists_at_wjnconsulting.com)
Date: 11/24/03
- Previous message: Wes Noonan: "RE: [fw-wiz] Skip the PDM"
- In reply to: Luca Berra: "Re: [fw-wiz] PIX 500 as ROUTER ONLY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
To: "'Luca Berra'" <bluca@comedia.it>, <firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 18:12:52 -0600
That is the biggest reason I can think of for why not to use the PIX as a
router. It can route, but it doesn't like to (and I don't think can) route
packets back on the same interface.
Wes Noonan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firewall-wizards-admin@honor.icsalabs.com [mailto:firewall-wizards-
> admin@honor.icsalabs.com] On Behalf Of Luca Berra
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 08:32
> To: firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
> Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] PIX 500 as ROUTER ONLY
>
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:26:26PM -0800, Dario Calia wrote:
> >Which PIX model do you have? The PIX supports static
> >routing, Passive
> >RIP and a very complete implementation of OSPF. What
>
> Dario,
> correct me if i am wrong, the major difference in using a pix instead of
> a router would be that the pix does not forward packets on the same
> interface?
>
> --
> Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
> Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
> /"\
> \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
> X AGAINST HTML MAIL
> / \
> _______________________________________________
> firewall-wizards mailing list
> firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
> http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
_______________________________________________
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@honor.icsalabs.com
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Previous message: Wes Noonan: "RE: [fw-wiz] Skip the PDM"
- In reply to: Luca Berra: "Re: [fw-wiz] PIX 500 as ROUTER ONLY"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|