<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic ISE Question in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-question/m-p/2337171#M107330</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; In ISE, For the Guest server, can a second NIC interface be used to physically connect the guest interface to a DMZ?&amp;nbsp; If so, can you provide a link?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 03:54:45 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>abhishekclub143</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-11T03:54:45Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-question/m-p/2337171#M107330</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; In ISE, For the Guest server, can a second NIC interface be used to physically connect the guest interface to a DMZ?&amp;nbsp; If so, can you provide a link?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 03:54:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-question/m-p/2337171#M107330</guid>
      <dc:creator>abhishekclub143</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-11T03:54:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Question</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-question/m-p/2337172#M107346</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Running Guest off of another interface has not been&amp;nbsp; tested thus it &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is not officially supported.&amp;nbsp; You will have the best chance running &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Guest on Gig1 and your Profiler collection probes on Gig2 or Gig3.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Another problem with moving&amp;nbsp; guest portal to a second interface &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is that there is currently no option to set a separate management and &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;guest certificate.&amp;nbsp; The management certificate is required to be &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;generated to the hostname of ISE.&amp;nbsp; That means you would have to have &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;your users in the DMZ get a DNS response for gig1 and the internal &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;subnets get a DNS response of gig0 for the same hostname.&amp;nbsp; I believe &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;this is the main reason we do not support moving the guest portal off of &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;gig0 at this time.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 2013 22:33:58 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-question/m-p/2337172#M107346</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ravi Singh</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-09-19T22:33:58Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

