<?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: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772341#M486610</link>
    <description>I don't see this a problem. I have PSN deployments between two countries&lt;BR /&gt;with 60 msec deployments and things are running smoothly.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The problem with MAR itself and its stability. I have seen MAR behaving&lt;BR /&gt;strange which finally made me move to EAP-FASTv2 which links user and&lt;BR /&gt;machine authentication natively.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I read many cisco articles and posts about same problems of MAR which I was&lt;BR /&gt;facing such as losing sync between user and machine auth that cause&lt;BR /&gt;intermittent loss of connection, users logoff but don't get connection&lt;BR /&gt;after login, etc&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 16:33:16 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Mohammed al Baqari</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-01-03T16:33:16Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3771578#M486601</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I have a large deployment with 10 PSNs spread between two datacenters.&amp;nbsp; The two datacenters are in the same city with very high speed low latency links (sub 10 ms) running between them.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Functionally they can be considered the same LAN.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Current I have the 5 PSNs in each datacenter configured into their own node group with MAR cache sync turned on.&amp;nbsp; All RADIUS authentication is sent to DC 1 with DC 2 as backup.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; This means DC1's MAR cache will be accurate, but in the event of a failover to DC2 it won't have an accurate MAR cache meaning any rules using MAR cache attribute would fail.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am debating putting all 10 PSNs into the same node group and want to know the thoughts about doing this:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;OL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;I know technically node groups aren't supposed to span sites, but honestly DCs in the same city with high speed/low latency interconnects is that really a problem?&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Is 10 nodes in a node group with MAR cache synchronization a concern?&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/OL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 13:50:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3771578#M486601</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-03T13:50:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772341#M486610</link>
      <description>I don't see this a problem. I have PSN deployments between two countries&lt;BR /&gt;with 60 msec deployments and things are running smoothly.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;The problem with MAR itself and its stability. I have seen MAR behaving&lt;BR /&gt;strange which finally made me move to EAP-FASTv2 which links user and&lt;BR /&gt;machine authentication natively.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;I read many cisco articles and posts about same problems of MAR which I was&lt;BR /&gt;facing such as losing sync between user and machine auth that cause&lt;BR /&gt;intermittent loss of connection, users logoff but don't get connection&lt;BR /&gt;after login, etc&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 16:33:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772341#M486610</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mohammed al Baqari</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-03T16:33:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772357#M486620</link>
      <description>Do you have the PSNs all in one node group with MAR sync?  How many PSNs total?&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 16:42:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772357#M486620</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-03T16:42:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772384#M486625</link>
      <description>Hi, yes I have all PSNs in same group. In total they are 4&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:28:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3772384#M486625</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mohammed al Baqari</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-03T17:28:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773128#M486633</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;On 1. With high speed and low latency, it's technically LAN speed so I would not expect any issue other than potentially physical disconnects.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;On 2. With 10 in the same node group appears too much. I would suggest 2 in each group, as it could contribute to more time to authenticate an endpoint when ISE tries querying the other PSNs in the group if the cache not found locally.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773128#M486633</guid>
      <dc:creator>hslai</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-04T16:40:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773138#M486640</link>
      <description>Thx for the response.   The issue is the MAR cache sync. It only works in the same node group.  So in your mind 10 is no good. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 16:51:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773138#M486640</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-04T16:51:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: MAR Cache Synchronization across large number of PSNs</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773192#M486644</link>
      <description>Yes, that's true&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2019 18:16:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/mar-cache-synchronization-across-large-number-of-psns/m-p/3773192#M486644</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mohammed al Baqari</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-01-04T18:16:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

