Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

Active/Active or single context

Is it worth creating multiple contexts just for the sake of getting active/active failover?

We are implementing two new ASA 5520's in our network and I would like to use active/active failover since it helps balance the load. But we just need 4 interfaces (1 in, 1 out, 2 dmz). I knwo that to use lan-based failover I would have to give up one of the eth interfaces and hence create sub interfaces for the second DMZ. Our network doesn't require multiple contexts at all but we would sure like to active/active failover. Can somebody put some light on this design issue..


Re: Active/Active or single context

It depends. If the site being protected is critical, then failover will help keep the services up. PIX 6.3 and later supports VLAN. I believe ASA will also support VLANs. If you are connecting the interfaces on a switch, you can considering VLANs.


Re: Active/Active or single context

another point needs to be considered is whether vpn will be needed now or in the near future. if vpn is more likely needed, then multiple security context is not an option.

also with multiple security contexts, static routes will be required.