What you are describing doesn't really make sense. You say you have connections back to the core site from all remotes. If that was the case there would be no reason for the pix at remote sites or an obvious reason for vpn tunnels between remotes and the core site. In that case, you could just put the core pix in front of the core site and the remotes, terminate the remotes before the core pix, and no need for all the other mess.
But I have a feeling there is more involved than we know at the moment.....:( ""Jeffrey Reed"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > I am curious about recommendations on remote office connections when VPNs > are involved. Today, in two separate occasions I ran into designs that > showed remote sites with a small 1720 router and a PIX 506. The 506 > terminated one end of a tunnel back to the core PIX and the 1720 facilitated > the frame connection. All traffic will be going back to the core, then if > needed, to the Internet through the central sites main connection. > > Why cant you just use the 1720s ability to terminate a tunnel and drop all > non-encrypted traffic and eliminate the need for the PIX? This would reduce > the costs of both the initial purchase as well as ongoing support. What are > the downsides to a design without a PIX at the remote site? > > Thanks!! > > Jeff Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=45316&t=45315 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
