<?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 Scalability in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420403#M496267</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per the scalability giude, if I have a dedicated 3595 as PAN and a dedicated 3595 as MnT, then I can have a maximum concurrent session of 500,000. But for a 3595 as PSN, maximum concurrent session is 40,000. So does it mean that if I have multiple PSNs, then the maximum that I can have is 500,000.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And if so, then does this mean that my maximum concurrent session will depend upon the model that I am using for PSN. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I have a 3515 as PAN and a 3595 as a PSN attached to it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just trying to get some clarity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:22:32 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>sameesin</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-07-11T14:22:32Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Scalability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420403#M496267</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As per the scalability giude, if I have a dedicated 3595 as PAN and a dedicated 3595 as MnT, then I can have a maximum concurrent session of 500,000. But for a 3595 as PSN, maximum concurrent session is 40,000. So does it mean that if I have multiple PSNs, then the maximum that I can have is 500,000.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And if so, then does this mean that my maximum concurrent session will depend upon the model that I am using for PSN. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can I have a 3515 as PAN and a 3595 as a PSN attached to it?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Just trying to get some clarity.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:22:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420403#M496267</guid>
      <dc:creator>sameesin</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-11T14:22:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Scalability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420404#M496268</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maximum concurrent session for the deployment is based on the PAN and MnT. You can get 500,000 concurrent endpoints in a deployment if the PAN and MnT is on 3595 or VM equivalent. Once you satisfy this number then each of the PSN (3595)&amp;nbsp; you add to the deployment can support 40,000 concurrent endpoints per box.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Although you can have 3515 as PAN and 3595 as a PSN but you will lose out as 3515 used as PAN can only support 7500 concurrent endpoint for the whole deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:11:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420404#M496268</guid>
      <dc:creator>howon</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-11T20:11:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Scalability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420405#M496269</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68347"&gt;ISE Performance &amp;amp;amp; Scale&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This is our one source of truth for ISE performance &amp;amp; scale.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the first table, if you are referring to row 1 - Yes, 500,000 is the max concurrent sessions in a dedicated deployment. The 40,000 sessions number is per 3595 PSN. See ISE PSN performance table (table 3 from top)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Your max concurrent sessions will depend on your deployment type (standalone, hybrid or dedicated) and the type of hardware. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Between 3515 &amp;amp; 3595, I would choose 3595 as the PAN &amp;amp; 3515 as the PSN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Krish &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2018 20:25:53 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420405#M496269</guid>
      <dc:creator>kvenkata1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-11T20:25:53Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Scalability</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420406#M496270</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;For clarity sake, if you are aiming for 40k active sessions per 3595 PSN, then you would need 4 nodes dedicated for Admin and Monitoring.&amp;nbsp; The roles must be split out in what the design and scaling guide refers to as dedicated nodes.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 x 3595 Admin nodes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2 x 3595 Monitoring nodes&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The next discussion that stems from this question would be if you want to design for 40,000 Active sessions per PSN.&amp;nbsp; It's my opinion that scaling numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt.&amp;nbsp; In a perfect world and under the ideal test conditions you might be able to attain scaling numbers.&amp;nbsp; Something I have come to notice over time is that scaling numbers are often led with a marketing mentality.&amp;nbsp; In the real world things don't always go to plan. I'm not beating up ISE specifically, this happens with all products, manufactures, and industries. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You always have to be conscious of what could happen.&amp;nbsp; If you design for 40k per PSN and have some misbehaving endpoints and network devices that slip through the cracks, what impact will it have.&amp;nbsp; If you want to do maintenance or lose a PSN, will you have the capacity to float through until it can be corrected?&amp;nbsp; Always needs to be considered during the design phase.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:10:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-scalability/m-p/3420406#M496270</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-07-12T00:10:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

