<html><head><style type='text/css'>p { margin: 0; }</style></head><body><div style='font-family: Verdana; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000'>while the reverse proxy has served us well, we did have to find someone to build and maintain this for us. also, not everything will work with a reverse proxy, especially any protocol that builds the IP address into the code and/or requires direct access to the host client. media master bar comes to mind. <br><br><span><span name="x"></span>---<br>Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A.<br>Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1<br>(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (ANNU)<br>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>Cooking with unix is easy. You just sed it and forget it. <br> - LFJ (with apologies to Mr. Popeil)<br><span name="x"></span><br></span><br><hr id="zwchr"><b>From: </b>"Wes Sisk" <wsisk@cisco.com><br><b>To: </b>"Matthew Saskin" <msaskin@gmail.com><br><b>Cc: </b>"FrogOnDSCP46EF" <ciscoboy2006@gmail.com>, "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip@puck.nether.net><br><b>Sent: </b>Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:00:52 PM<br><b>Subject: </b>Re: [cisco-voip] CUCM - separating management traffic<br><br>out of band management is usually delivered via IPKVM either as external hardware or utilizing iLO or the IBM equivalent which escapes me at the moment.<div><br></div><div>To protect the administrative interfaces (web and ssh) block traffic from hostile environments to these on a per port basis.</div><div><br></div><div>The only overlap is access to ccmuser vs. (ccmadmin/ccmservice/iptplatform) as all are web services. Because they utilize https now Lelio is spot on that a front end proxy is required.</div><div><br></div><div>The general response is that there are devices that do this and very commonly do it better than any possible internal implementation. With that precondition why add the additional complexity to the core product?</div><div><br></div><div>We've seen several times, even here on cisco-voip, where an ASA or external box is required for true policing. Security folks present a very sound case for this.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Wes</div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 19, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Matthew Saskin wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">I knew Lelio was going to chime in ;)<br><br>It's an interesting note that while none of my financial customers have done this, or use features like secure voice, I have one Edu whose policy is "everything on the network must be encrypted, end of story". The net of this is vastly more time spent troubleshooting security/encryption issues, and a significant extra workload in terms of additional servers/development work to "Secure" things that aren't secured by their nature (eg; ODBC access to UCCX via informix drivers. While ODBC can be secured/encrypted, the informix connectivity to UCCX can't be encrypted)<br>
<br>I digress. While I agree with Lelio that it's not a difficult thing for Cisco to implement, I've yet to see the real-world call for it barring very specific circumstances...and we all know the reality, until it's clamored for by a collective of customers spending 10's of millions of dollars, it's not likely to happen.<br>
<br>-matthew<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Scott Voll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:svoll.voip@gmail.com" target="_blank">svoll.voip@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
except Lelio ;-)<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Scott</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Matthew Saskin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:msaskin@gmail.com" target="_blank">msaskin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Who knows? It's not something that I've ever heard of on the roadmap from CIsco. Technically speaking, I can't imagine it would be terribly difficult to have the various CCM services operate on one interface/IP and the management (HTTP/HTTPS) on another address, but that's just me thinking about it.<br>
<br>Speaking realistically, I've never seen anyone care enough to implement ACL's or application layer filtering to "protect" the admin interface in the real world.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>-matthew</font></span><div><div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:21 AM, FrogOnDSCP46EF <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ciscoboy2006@gmail.com" target="_blank">ciscoboy2006@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Thanks Mathew. Would this be difficult to do? Given Cisco has inhouse UC developers.<div><div><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Matthew Saskin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:msaskin@gmail.com" target="_blank">msaskin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">You can't. Virtual or physical, CUCM only operates using a single interface and single IP address. Closest you're going to get is firewall rules to disallow certain access based on source, and that may not even work as things like authentication URL's are on the same IP/port on the CUCM - you'd have to do some application layer filtering of URL's.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM, FrogOnDSCP46EF <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ciscoboy2006@gmail.com" target="_blank">ciscoboy2006@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>
Have anyone figured out yet how to separate CUCM management in VMware or physical deployment?<br><br>It's kind of weird, Cisco's all deployment templates are still putting mgmt and traffic packets on the same eth0 interface.<br>
<br>I bet this is in Cisco's todo list.<br><br>thanks<br>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br></div></div><span><font color="#888888">-- <br>Smile, you'll save someone else's day!<br>Frog<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-voip mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br><a href="mailto:cisco-voip@puck.nether.net" target="_blank">cisco-voip@puck.nether.net</a><br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br></div><br></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>cisco-voip mailing list<br>cisco-voip@puck.nether.net<br>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip<br></div></body></html>