<?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: RADIUS proxy to ISE with accounting only for SGT-IP mappings in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radius-proxy-to-ise-with-accounting-only-for-sgt-ip-mappings/m-p/3919843#M457285</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Employees are encouraged to use the internal forum for questions&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://cs.co/ask-ise" target="_blank"&gt;Ask ISE &lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please reach out to us since this is design related. It needs more information or a further discussion to understand use case, solution options etc.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;-Krishnan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:34:57 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>kthiruve</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-09-05T19:34:57Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>RADIUS proxy to ISE with accounting only for SGT-IP mappings</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radius-proxy-to-ise-with-accounting-only-for-sgt-ip-mappings/m-p/3919802#M457283</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Looking for a design validation for a customer.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Customer is using Clearpass for wireless and wants to do:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- RADIUS proxy from Clearpass to ISE but only with RADIUS accounting to extract the username. Clearpass is performing the Authentication/Authorization and these 2 are not proxied&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- ISE will then retrieve the AD groups associated to the username and use it to map an SGT.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- This SGT-IP mapping will then be sent via SXP to FMC-FTD for enforcement.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is this a supported design? Do we use the same design criterias for scalability based on concurrent endpoints in this scenario and the same licensing consumption?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 18:34:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radius-proxy-to-ise-with-accounting-only-for-sgt-ip-mappings/m-p/3919802#M457283</guid>
      <dc:creator>slevesqu</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-05T18:34:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: RADIUS proxy to ISE with accounting only for SGT-IP mappings</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radius-proxy-to-ise-with-accounting-only-for-sgt-ip-mappings/m-p/3919843#M457285</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Employees are encouraged to use the internal forum for questions&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="http://cs.co/ask-ise" target="_blank"&gt;Ask ISE &lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Please reach out to us since this is design related. It needs more information or a further discussion to understand use case, solution options etc.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;-Krishnan&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 2019 19:34:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radius-proxy-to-ise-with-accounting-only-for-sgt-ip-mappings/m-p/3919843#M457285</guid>
      <dc:creator>kthiruve</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-09-05T19:34:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

