Cisco Firewall :: ASA 5550 - Migrate From Multiple Context To Single
Jun 13, 2012
I have a Fail over pair of ASA5550's running ASDM 6.2(5) and ASA 8.2(2). Originally they were setup with 2 context's and an admin context but one of the contexts has now been removed. I would like to now migrate to single mode before I go about patching them to the latest software.
I have a Failover pair of ASA5550's running ASDM 6.2(5) and ASA 8.2(2). Originally they were setup with 2 context's and an admin context but one of the contexts has now been removed. I would like to now migrate to single mode before I go about patching them to the latest software.
I have a pair of ASA 5520s in active/standby failover mode, single context. I'll be migrating to multiple context mode later this week. Do I need to break failover first? Or if I don't need to, should I? Or can I do this while maintaining failover? Can either of these scenarios will work (or fail). I'll be remote, doing my work via SSH, but have somebody local who can console in if needed.
Migration option #1 Log into active/primary ASA Configure Multiple Context mode Reboot both devices Login to active/primary ASA
My corporate internal network is currently fire walled by an FWSM module on a 6513 switch. We have each security zone (we have eight) assigned to a FWSM context and have ACLs set up between the contexts and the enterprise LAN/WAN. Is it possible to support fire walling between these zones within a single security context? The reason I am asking is that we would like to purchase a second FWSM for use as a standby, but do not want to cough up the ~ $12K for the context license. We will ultimately be transitioning to ASAs for internal security, so do not want to spend more than we need to.
I have two ASA 5510 in an Active/Active failover configuration; On the first ASA I have a license for five security contexts, on the second one I have the default two. On the pair I configured seven security contexts and everything works as expected; so far so good. Let's suppose now that the first ASA (the one with the license for 5 contexts) goes up in smoke; all the contexts migrate to the surviving firewall and life is still good. But what happens if, for some reason, I need to reboot the second ASA before the first one is repaired? My guess is that it will come up with just its own license for two contexts and that I will not be able to operate all my virtual firewalls.
I need your support for upgrading the Security context license on 5550, at present we have 5 Security context license installed in ASA but we want it to increased till 10 conctexts. I want to understand if we need to get addtional 5 Security context license or 10.
I'm having a problem with a context, I have two CISCO ASA 5550 (failover) and also we have the CISCO CSM to monitoring it, but since some weeks is showing a memory usage of 100% but then it drops until reach zero and then again the graphic goes up. This is the second time that the graphic shows this
I also check this on the CLI and i'ts fine because is showing the real percent, so my question here is why is showing this kind of behavior, I mean it was working fine before.
In the other hand I checked the secondary device and this is showing a 99% of used memory, but as the other one this graphic doesn't drop
I also checked via CLI and it says that it had the 99% memory used , Is there a way that i can put more memory on the context or what do you suggest that I can check on my firewalls.
I have ASA 5550, i create 2 context in my ASA 5550. I create a NAT in context A and context B. But when i create NAT in context B i get another i get error message like this "static overlaps with global in another context". I have checked there is same nat translation in context A and context B. My question is : is same nat translation configuration not allowed in context A and context B"
I am working on a project to migrate a single Checkpoint firewall over to a single ASA 5510, no VPN, just firewall. The checkpoint firewall has 8 physical interface so the ASA 5510 also support physical 8 interfaces so thiw will be a one-to-one swap. At the moment, I don't have an ASA 5510 to test my theory so I am going to throw it out here. The checkpoint firewall is a SPLAT running on an powerfull IBM Server with 8 CPU dual cores with 32GB of RAM and it has 1200 rules with over 120,000 objects with some of the crazy NATs but it works so we will just leave it at that. There are not that much traffics going across the firewall so there are no need to put in an ASA 5585
I use the cisco conversion tool to do the policy conversion from Checkpoint to Cisco, I get about 1.5 million lines in the configuration. A lot of it has to do with Checkpoint having no concept of interface security level while ASA does. I am sure I can optimize it to cut down the number of lines in the configuration; however, that is not my main concern at the moment. The customer goal is that at the time when cutover from Checkpoint to Cisco ASA, they want everything to be perfect, meaning that it will work like magic.
My question is that can the ASA 5510 handle 1.5 million lines of configuration? Are there any limitations on this? I know there are limitations with FWSM but since I don't have an 5510 to test.
I've been using packet-tracer for some time on and off with mixed results.
I'm running a multi context firewall with over 10 of the contexts sharing the same outside interface / network. All interfaces obviously have valid, unique IPs and also unique MAC addresses as mac-address auto is enabled in the system context.
This is an ASA 5550 running 8.3(2.10) interim so includes the fix for the well known packet-tracer classication failed bug.
So in theory, with firewall contexts on a shared interface the ASA should use the firewall MAC address to classify incoming traffic to the correct firewall and as far as I am aware, only fall back on using NAT to classify if the interface MACs are the same. In reality on my platform this doesn't seem to be happening and the classifier is using NAT to determine the destination context. I'm seeing this with live traffic (i.e. not generated by packet-tracer) in logs and can prove it by disabling certain NAT rules (there is some overlap with the IP addressing behind each firewall).
My question regarding packet tracer is this - in the above scenario with a shared outside interface, does packet tracer ALWAYS use NAT to determine the destination context? Or does packet tracer look up the MAC address of the ingress interface according to what context you are running packet tracer from? It appears that packet-tracer is using NAT in my case which could be just symptomatic of the potential bug I've described above rather than by design.
I need to replace an ASA with an IOS firewall router, and am not sure how to migrate the NAT configuration. Specifically, there is an interface "3rdparty" that has onward connectivity to other private addresses, so our internal addressing is hidden. For some reason there are static NAT rules in different directions across the interface, but at present I cannot see why. Thinking in router terms, all that springs to mind is the inside and outside tags for the interfaces, but also that it might need "overlapping" NAT to be configured.
I am looking to deploy a cloud/borderless network solution and cannot get my head around how the licenses (AnyConnect Mobile and essentials) will be applied in a multiple context deployment. Any correct documentation.
We already know that ASA 9.0 supports site-to-site VPN in multiple context mode. But remote access VPN isn't supported. Obviously, SSL-VPN is a very important feature for most multi-tenant deployment scenarios where each context acts as a border firewall towards the Internet for each tenant. The alternative to terminate all tenant remote-access VPNs in one context means that each tenant would have to be routable from the ASA, which of course isn't a reasonable requirement in most cases.
So, what I'd like to do is to deploy an ASA cluster, and provide remote access VPNs for each tenant, where the connectivity for each remote access group can be addressed with whatever IP address space, and that goes into it's own VRF in the back-end.
As far as I can tell, this isn't doable with the ASA, since multiple context mode prohibits the use of remote access VPN, and I can't think of any other work-around than either having individual firewalls running in single context mode for each tenant, or demand that all tenants are interoperable routing-wise and configure a separate ip address pool in a single context mode for each tenant.
Essentially, there's no good way to implement this with multiple virtual firewalls, using cisco firewalls?
I need to configure multiple context mode with active/standby failover solution.
Even after reading some Cisco documents I still can't understand if active/standby failover configuration has to be done within the admin context only or also within every single context (context-1, context-2 for example). In this case I have to allocate as failover interface a subinterface for each context (admin, context-1, context-2), right ?
Therefore a I have an other question: within the admin context, in a failover solution, do I have to allocate all interfaces I want to be moniotred, even though some will be used by context-1 only context and some others will be used by context-2 only context ?
An other question is: if active/standby failover configuration has to be done within each context, can I set regular failover within context-1 while stateful failover within context-2 ?
The last question is: can I use management interface within all 3 contexts ?
what´s going on with an asa540 configure in multiple-context mode. I Have a cacti server on my lan and now I´m try to monitoring the interface with snmp. When I try to get this information returns the error message:
CISCOASA/CONTEXTA# JUN 11 2013 01:52:00: %ASA-1-1-6021: Deny UDP reverse path check from 10.6.6.6 to IP_SRV_CACTI on interface inside JUN 11 2013 01:52:01: %ASA-1-1-6021: Deny UDP reverve path check from 10.6.6.6 to IP_SRV_CACTI on interface inside
If I try to ping returns the same error:
CISCOASA/CONTEXTA# JUN 11 2013 01:56:09: %ASA-1-1-6021: Deny icmp reverse path check from 10.6.6.6 to IP_SRV_CACTI on interface inside
Following attached the conf of my asa My question is Why I can´t ping or even use snmp ?
I have 2xASA5510 with securityPlus license.i have configured 3 context and Active/Active Failover.Everything works fine. But also want to use rometeAccessVPN but couldn't fine anything for VPN. does it support VPN in multiple mode?
I got an ASA 5510 system currently in single context mode, with CSC SSM installed. Single ISP uplink to internet, no VPN. And now customer would like add another ISP uplink, without invest another box for HA.What come across my mind is make the current box into multi context. There's some area i need to concern and also need yours perspective on it.
Question 1: For making the firewall into multi context, am i need to do it from scratch, issue mode multiple command. Then rebuilt the current production config into one of the context, then another context meant for the new IPS uplink, and one admin context?
Question 2: For CSC -SSM licensing requirement, model ASA 5510 with security plus license is able to support 2 context. So if i split my firewall like what i mention in question, what exactly number of context do i own (admin, context A, context B)?
Question 3: For CSC-SSM module in multi context mode, so the management port of CSC SSM must attach at admin context?
Question 4: After configured all the policy and traffic to scan, how exactly i should do in order apply this policy to the interface? Should i only enable at admin context, then firewall service-policy rules, and apply it global, OR should i also do the same action on context A and Context B?
I need to create a firewalled segment that not only separates hosts from general population, but also from each other. The solitary confinement of firewalled segments.I know that I could create a bunch of sub-interfaces, one for each host or group that needs to be isolated, but I'd really rather not have to do that if possible. 1) It could become a management nightmare between ACLs and sub-interfaces and 2) it's a waste of IP addresses.s there any way that I can create a bunch of separate VLANs behind the firewall and have them all terminate at the firewall, using a single firewall IP address for the gateway?
I have a FTP server at my local network and i have natted the private IP with my Public IP using default FTP Port ( 21) , now i have created Diffrent FTP Account in my server using port 2121 and i am able to login using the private IP with port 2121 , now i want to nat with my public IP with port 2121 and i failed,
1) 125.x.x.x --------- 10.10.1.x : 21 ( Able to access from external network)
2) 125.x.x.x ---------- 10.10.1.x : 2121 ( not able to login from external network and able to login internally )
We are migrating from a nother brand to an ASA Cluster running 8.4.5
We have a web-server on an inside interface listening on a non standard port - 20111. We have created a static NAT translating the public ip to the private, so If I do http://public-ip:20111 it works. (we are using a seperate public IP for this service only).
Now I need to create a NAT rule that will forward requests on BOTH port 80 and 443 to the same private ip and the same port number (20111)
The Private address is 10.99.250.20 and the "public" (I've replaced it in this example) is 172.16.16.16 I have managed to create a NAT that will translate 443 to 20111:
I know most QoS capabilities aren't available in multiple context mode, but I need to do some really simple policing on one of my contexts. I just want to apply a hard 20Mbps cap on an interface. I've seen a few places that suggest that basic policing is possible in multiple context mode, but apparently not by the normal commands.
I've got an ASA which has a number of contexts. They all share the same external interface, and in the interest of saving addresses I'm wondering if the standby address for each context is really necessary. I know that in active/passive the standby address is what allows the two to communicate and monitor that particular interface, however, in active/active I don't see the point as the context is either going to be on one or the other.
Im looking for some clarification regarding running a Cisco ASA in transparent mode with multiple contexts. To give you an insight into the network design we have the following -
Collapsed Core/Aggregation Layer running Cisco 3750s. The 2 Cisco 3750s are using SVIs with HSRP for default gateways per customer with a total of 8 customers. Each customer is segregated into seperate VLANs with Cisco 2960 switches used in the Access layer. Each customer has 2 Cisco 2960 switches with redundant uplinks to the Core/Aggregation layer. Customers are spanning tree loadbalanced between core/aggregation switches.
What i need to now do is add two transparent firewalls into the mix in either an active/active or active/standby setup. I need the firewalls to support all 8 customers, therefore I am guessing they need to run in multiple context mode. Having read into this it has left me somewhat confused as to how to integrate them into the above setup as a bump in the wire so to speak.
Is it possible to assign a single ssid to multiple interface groups by assigning the ssid to multiple AP groups?
I have buildings geographically dispersed that are configured with multiple vlans in interface groups so that I can maintain an addressing scheme of dhcp assigned addresses per building. Each building is also further grouped as AP groups. I'd like to know if by assigning the same wlan ssid to each of the AP groups, will I maintain addressing integrity for each building? I'm thinking it will work.
Do the buildings have to be outside AP range of each other to avoid problems?
Am trying to understand how we can have multiple IP addresses on a single NIC and what are the restrictions on the same. If i can have two IPs from two different networks present on a single NIC, then why would i ever get a new NIC?
Also, i want to understand the concept of virtual IP and how it fits into this picture.
I have an older DELL power edge 2800. Currently we have 2 NIC's one for the WAN one for the LAN. I wish to increase my users access speed. Can I team and or bond up to Four NIC's on the LAN side and leave the single NIC for the WAN? I am having trouble finding any info on the net for pulling this off. I have 67 users and throughput is getting a little rough.
Is it possible to use 1 or 2 of the 4 gigabit ethernet ports from one ACE straight into the other ACE for redundancy? So ACE_01 gig0/4 to ACE_02 gig0/4.If so, is it a case of just having the layer 3 config instead of trunking etc..Also - is it possible to create a context within the same vlan as the Admin context?
I need to put a few cameras, without a server, on a static WAN ip address. Do I just assign them a static LAN ip address(for example 192.168.1.200), make sure the port they use is open, then type the WAN static ip address then colon and the last address? Like this.....I'm making up the WAN address....184.108.40.2064:200