The PIX does route, but it is not a router. You can add static routes:
pixfirewall(config)# route
usage: [no] route []
or, you can run RIP to broadcast default route or run passive RIP:
pixfirewall(config)# rip
usage: [no] rip default|passive [version <1|2>] [authentication
]
The PIX can
I think this comes from the fact that cisco instructors in class say that
the Pix is not a router. I have heard this as well when I had the class.
I know the Pix is not a router, but does it route? Well, if making decisions
about where to send traffic based on layer 3 info is routing then I would
Maybe it is because it does not base forwarding decisions on layer 3 info
alone but also takes into account layer 4 and 7 info as well?
-Original Message-
From: haroldnjoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Friday, February 16
PM
To: haroldnjoe; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Firewalls and VPNs
I think this comes from the fact that cisco instructors in class say that
the Pix is not a router. I have heard this as well when I had the class.
I know the Pix is not a router, but does it route? Well, if making decisions
PIX - sounds like a router to me - packet forwarding
based on layer 3 addressing. It has extra security
features and all of a sudden it's a
firewall...marketing fluff? or accurate description???
who will uncover this mystery ;>
--- mtieast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think this comes from
A device can best be described by its chief function. You can use a
PIX as a router, just allow everything through. In fact you can use a
router as a firewall, be selective with access lists. Terminology is
flexible as long as you're pragmatic about function.
On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 10:52:06AM -
As someone said yesterday: The PIX will not route, period. It will NAT
(including NAT 0), but it will not route packets between different networks.
If you need routing off any interface on a PIX, you need a router there.
--
Jason Roysdon, CCNP+Security/CCDP, MCSE, CNA, Network+, A+
List email: [
routes.
Tim
- Original Message -
From: "Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: Firewalls and VPNs
As someone said yesterday: The PIX will not route, period. It will NAT
(in
This is a less marketing-speak and more technically driven
terminology problem than router versus switch, but, again, I fall
back on there being no such thing as a router. There are L3 route
determination and L3 packet forwarding functions.
In the case of the PIX, we have what the IETF is loo
Anyone can confirm that a PIX decrements TTL?
On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 11:35:46AM -0500, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>This is a less marketing-speak and more technically driven
>terminology problem than router versus switch, but, again, I fall
>back on there being no such thing as a router. The
What are you talking about?
A PIX is nothing more than a router with ONLY Ethernet interfaces. You mean
to tell me that
the "route (interface) dest address, dest mask, next hop, metric" command
doesn't actually route?
Just my $.02.
-Scott
""Jason"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
96l2j0$
Does your pix have a default route?
Does your pix forward packets between subnets?
Logically, then, the pix routes. Call it what you will, when forwarding
between disparate networks, you route. I suppose cisco misunderstands the
term "route" too.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/ia
Is there any good reason why the PIX doesn't route?
Why it doesn't run OSPF? A Checkpoint firewall running
on a Solaris box would be able to run OSPF or
something, right? Why not a PIX?
Michael
--- anthony kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Does your pix have a default route?
> Does your pix forwa
your
whole network is no longer functioning...
Tim
- Original Message -
From: "Yonkerbonk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "anthony kim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jason"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 1:40 A
At 10:40 PM 2/17/2001 -0800, Yonkerbonk wrote:
>Is there any good reason why the PIX doesn't route?
>Why it doesn't run OSPF? A Checkpoint firewall running
>on a Solaris box would be able to run OSPF or
>something, right? Why not a PIX?
>
>Michael
Personally, I think it's a good idea not to have
>Does your pix have a default route?
>Does your pix forward packets between subnets?
>Logically, then, the pix routes. Call it what you will, when forwarding
>between disparate networks, you route. I suppose cisco misunderstands the
>term "route" too.
Also confusing the terminology may be that th
16 matches
Mail list logo
