<?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 Re: ISE 2.6 Sizing in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3923996#M457130</link>
    <description>Yes this will be fine for your requirements and allows for some growth.  While on 2.4, you should consider the 3655 the same as a 3595 for scaling since 2.4, 20k active endpoints in a hybrid deployment.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;After you have upgraded to 2.6, scale for 25k active endpoints has been tested on a hybrid deployment.  Four medium r-ise-vmm-k9 licenses is correct for this.</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:29:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-09-13T15:29:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE 2.6 Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3923807#M457127</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;what would be the best combination of VM licenses and endpoint support of Cisco 2.6 Version in a hybrid deployment.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Requirement is :&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;15000 Endpoints needs to be supported.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Initial software would be 2.4, however, should be compatible to update on 2.6 in the future.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Hybrid deployment with Two Mnt+Admin node and Two PSNs.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kindly confirm if below combination would be correct. Or do I need to go for a&amp;nbsp;&lt;STRONG&gt;large VM (R-ISE-VML-K9=)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;1.&amp;nbsp;R-ISE-VMM-K9=&amp;nbsp; 2 (MnT+ Admin)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;2.&amp;nbsp;R-ISE-VMM-K9=&amp;nbsp; 2 (PSNs)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;3. SNS 3655 (Medium VM)&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MD&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 10:08:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3923807#M457127</guid>
      <dc:creator>munish.dhiman1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-13T10:08:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE 2.6 Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3923996#M457130</link>
      <description>Yes this will be fine for your requirements and allows for some growth.  While on 2.4, you should consider the 3655 the same as a 3595 for scaling since 2.4, 20k active endpoints in a hybrid deployment.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;After you have upgraded to 2.6, scale for 25k active endpoints has been tested on a hybrid deployment.  Four medium r-ise-vmm-k9 licenses is correct for this.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Sep 2019 15:29:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3923996#M457130</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-13T15:29:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE 2.6 Sizing</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3930125#M457137</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Thanks Damien.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;MD&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:09:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-6-sizing/m-p/3930125#M457137</guid>
      <dc:creator>munish.dhiman1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-25T13:09:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

