Is there a specific reason why you would not have a single context and use a different interface for Internal, BP-A, and BP-B? It's possible to do it with multiple contexts, but I think it would be easier to do it with a single context.
No specific reason. My reasoning (which may be convoluted are completely off) was to give each business partner the security of being seperated by a virtual firewall from one another. It's not a strict requirement, but more of a design "thought" I had when reviewing the functionality of contexts. It sounds like I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be?
Hi Colin - Thanks for the feedback. I've had similar feedback from other engineers I spoke with offline. I will very likely go back to the single context mode. Would you suggest using DMZ's as part of the design?
Table of ContentsIntroductionVersion HistoryPossible Future
UpdatesDocuments PurposeNAT Operation in ASA 8.3+ SectionsRule Types
Network Object NATTwice NAT / Manual NATRule Types used per SectionNAT
Types used with Twice NAT / Manual NAT and Network Obje...
[toc:faq]Introduction:This document describes details on how NAT-T
works.Background:ESP encrypts all critical information, encapsulating
the entire inner TCP/UDP datagram within an ESP header. ESP is an IP
protocol in the same sense that TCP and UDP are I...