<?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 2.4 Licensing Clarification in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-4-licensing-clarification/m-p/3860775#M472765</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I currently have profiling groups to profile devices, say Computers, Scanners, and Phones. These groups have Identity Groups which were created with a parent group of Profiled. They are also a member of a Logical Profile called All Devices.&amp;nbsp; After a device is profiled, I statically assign the device so that it no longer uses a profiling license. I have been doing this for over a year; when the profiling Plus licenses go over their limits, we statically assign devices and the Plus licenses come back down by the next day.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We just recently started doing Wired 802.1X\MAB.&amp;nbsp; The plan was to do the profiling the same way that we have completed it with wireless.&amp;nbsp; However, for Wired MAB, when I statically profile a device and it authenticates to the network, it uses a profiling license. If I move the device to an Identity Group that does not have Profiled as it's Parent group, it does not consume a license.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that a bug with 2.4, or is it specifically supposed to be like that?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why is the behavior different for groups if I am doing wireless 802.1x versus wired MAB?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was always under the impression that if I statically assign a device, it would not use a Plus license.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 10:45:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Alex Pfeil</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-05-22T10:45:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE 2.4 Licensing Clarification</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-4-licensing-clarification/m-p/3860775#M472765</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I currently have profiling groups to profile devices, say Computers, Scanners, and Phones. These groups have Identity Groups which were created with a parent group of Profiled. They are also a member of a Logical Profile called All Devices.&amp;nbsp; After a device is profiled, I statically assign the device so that it no longer uses a profiling license. I have been doing this for over a year; when the profiling Plus licenses go over their limits, we statically assign devices and the Plus licenses come back down by the next day.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We just recently started doing Wired 802.1X\MAB.&amp;nbsp; The plan was to do the profiling the same way that we have completed it with wireless.&amp;nbsp; However, for Wired MAB, when I statically profile a device and it authenticates to the network, it uses a profiling license. If I move the device to an Identity Group that does not have Profiled as it's Parent group, it does not consume a license.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is that a bug with 2.4, or is it specifically supposed to be like that?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why is the behavior different for groups if I am doing wireless 802.1x versus wired MAB?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I was always under the impression that if I statically assign a device, it would not use a Plus license.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 10:45:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-4-licensing-clarification/m-p/3860775#M472765</guid>
      <dc:creator>Alex Pfeil</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-22T10:45:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE 2.4 Licensing Clarification</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-4-licensing-clarification/m-p/3860814#M472767</link>
      <description>Static assignment should not consume a plus license. There have been some bugs found in 2.4 around that.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I don’t know why the behavior is different as I agree it shouldn’t be.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I would suggest opening tac case for further analysis if still issues.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2019 11:38:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-2-4-licensing-clarification/m-p/3860814#M472767</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jason Kunst</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-05-22T11:38:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

