From: Hoogen (hoogen82@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2008 - 15:30:45 ART
Lol.. I don't think Brian would ever use such a complex sentence to explain
something so simple... ;)
You got it right lol.. Seriously like Joe said do more research these are
basic questions... Cisco is so well documented..
-Hoogen
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Copley <copley.chris@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I dont think that your understanding my question. My question was in
> respond to Brian saying the following...
> "It should be the higher security interface, the lower security interface,
> the lower, then the high again."
>
> In the terms Higher security interface and lower security interface. In
> my mind if you have an outside (public facing interface) the security level
> is 0. But that in my way of thinking is a Higher Security interface,
> because you need MORE security on that interface to keep people on the
> outsie comming in. And on the internal inside (LAN facing interface) with
> the security level being 100 that you need less security b/c you are not
> worried about what goes out of it. Is that a correct way of thinking of
> Higher and lower security interface or not?
>
> Chris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:56 ART