PIX 6.2(2) -> 6.3(4) Upgrade

Hi,

Quick question. If I upgrade a PIX506 from v6.2(2) to v6.3(4), will this impact in any way the configuration of a PIX-PIX VPN that we have established? I do NOT have access to the PIX on the other end of the VPN. I'm trying to setup a second site-site VPN with a 3rd 506e, and when I typed in the commands taken from the PIX running v6.2(2), I got a message that a couple have been depreciated. I'd like to upgrade, but only if I have some assurance that it won't break the existing VPN.

Thanks.

John

Reply to
John
Loading thread data ...

In article , John wrote: :Quick question. If I upgrade a PIX506 from v6.2(2) to v6.3(4), will this :impact in any way the configuration of a PIX-PIX VPN that we have :established?

If you are currently using 'alias' with respect to traffic over the VPN, then you could potentially find that the stability of 'alias' has sufficiently corroded to affect the link.

If on one of the two sides, the transform set lists AH first and the other does not, and if AH is presently not actually in use because the other end does not list it first and so they negotiate it away, -and- if you have NAT inbetween or if AH is blocked inbetween, -and- if both points end up with NAT-T (isakmp nat-traversal) turned on: then you may run into difficulty. In this set of circumstances, asymmetric transforms can end up being negotiated, with one side not using AH and the other side thinking the connection isn't working because it isn't getting the AH it expects. It's a long chain of circumstances, but I learned this one in the School Of Hard Knocks.

:I do NOT have access to the PIX on the other end of the :VPN. I'm trying to setup a second site-site VPN with a 3rd 506e, and :when I typed in the commands taken from the PIX running v6.2(2), I got a :message that a couple have been depreciated.

By 6.3(4), the only thing I can recall that is deprecated to the point of disapperance, is the 'dnat' sysopt. Everything else will either be grudgingly supported or else automatically upgraded to newer forms.

I do, though, warn that 'alias' should not be counted on in conjunction with any new 6.3 feature such as policy nat. Unfortunately, some people have been reporting difficulties in getting the replacement, the 'dns' keyword on 'static', to work properly. The other half of 'alias', reverse nat, seems to work, but it can be confusing to configure.

Note: if you are using 'alias' for overlapping networks shared over the VPN, and you replace it with 'reverse nat' aka 'bidirectional nat', aka 'nat outside', then be advised that the crypto map 'match address' ACL must match the transformed IP addresses, not the internal versions of them. 'crypto map match address' ACLs are evaluated *after* NAT has taken place.

Reply to
Walter Roberson

Thanks. We are currently not (to my knowledge) using 'alias' (at least it's not in the config for the PIX in the existing site-site VPN that I have access to), so I assume it's not on the other one. All (3) LANs (thankfully) use different private IP address ranges.

'dnat' sysop is the command the new PIX is complaining about (actually no dnat sysop)

Also thanks for the note at the end of your message, I didn't realize that the crypto map ACL's were evaluated after NAT.

John

Walter Robers> > :Quick question. If I upgrade a PIX506 from v6.2(2) to v6.3(4), will this

Reply to
John

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.