<?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: Specific profiles for specific locations in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479895#M496914</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I figured this out: I had to increase the certainty factor for the custom profile in order for it to supersede the Windows10-Workstation profile.&amp;nbsp; Once that was done, proper group assignment followed, as expected.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hopefully we don't have too many custom profiles with high certainty factors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Brian&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:05:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bricrock</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-06-18T19:05:21Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Specific profiles for specific locations</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479892#M496911</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;An existing, successful ISE deployment is looking to expand to include new departments.&amp;nbsp; However, these departments are reluctant to participate in ISE because they fear disruption.&amp;nbsp; For the purposes of this question, let's consider Departments A-G to be existing participants in the ISE deployment.&amp;nbsp; The new departments will be Departments H and I.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;As a first step towards adoption, two new PSN's will be deployed for the purposes of collecting profile/device data from&amp;nbsp; network devices located in Departments H and I -targeting a sort of Monitor Mode configuration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Understanding that we can create AuthC policies based on authenticating NAD, how can we then p&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;rofile these endpoints separately from the existing, working endpoint groups/profiles into new, dedicated endpoint groups/profiles specific to these departments?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;For example, we don't want a Windows workstation in Department H to be profiled as simply a "Windows10-Workstation"; but, rather, as a "DeptH-Windows10-Workstation".&amp;nbsp; Or an Unknown device to be profiled in a separate "DeptH-Unknown" group so that we can talk to the department admins and develop accurate checks (e.g. they may use a different model of printer than what we've accounted for).&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Initial thoughts are to use a parent Profiler Policy for the department. This Parent Policy would include a condition of the authenticating NAD.&amp;nbsp; Child Profiler Policies could then be created, as needed, to refine Unknowns or others.&amp;nbsp; But this doesn't seem to take priority over the other policies.&amp;nbsp; Can something be configured in the Policy Set to force a particular endpoint group and set of profiling policies?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Thank you,&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P style="font-size: 13.3333px;"&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 10pt;"&gt;Brian&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 15:32:22 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479892#M496911</guid>
      <dc:creator>bricrock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-18T15:32:22Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Specific profiles for specific locations</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479893#M496912</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Brian,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Profiling policies are global. For a windows computer to be profiled separately as &lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial;"&gt;DeptH-Windows10-Workstation, it needs to send its hostname in a particular format or send some form of dhcp class identifier and you have to match that in a profiling condition on ISE. &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="color: #3d3d3d; font-family: arial;"&gt;The easiest way I think to differentiate building H and I end-devices is, &lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1) Create new Network device group aka tag for these NADs under Network Devices List &amp;gt; New Network Device&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2) Create a separate authorization policy to match this tag and have it assigned built-in Monitor_Profiled authorization&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;for example,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Rule Name = Monitor_Policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Condition = Profiled Identity Group (Windows 10, MAC, Printer etc)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Permissions = Monitor_Profiled&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This way you can tag NADs separately for building H and I&amp;nbsp; and end devices authenticated on those can have a different authorization policy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Once the monitoring period is over, you can change the tag on the NADs and bring them under common authorization policy without making a major change.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps!!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Amod&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:15:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479893#M496912</guid>
      <dc:creator>adarshane</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-18T18:15:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Specific profiles for specific locations</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479894#M496913</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks, Amod.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, the issue isn't with the Network Device or Policy differentiation; but with the assigned Endpoint Profile and Endpoint Group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The correct policy is being hit, but the endpoint is receiving the generic Windows10-Workstation Endpoint Profile and, as such, isn't getting placed into the correct/expected Endpoint Group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ideally, this is what would happen:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Endpoint authenticates to a switch in Department H via MAB, is assigned the parent profile of DeptH_Device, additional attributes may further profile the endpoint to the child profile of DeptH_Printer, and the device is placed into the endpoint group "DeptH_Printer".&amp;nbsp; AuthZ policy is simply PermitAccess (we're not trying to affect any network control).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I feel like I'm close, but that I'm not taking into account some default behavior of the ISE.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks again,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Brian&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 18:48:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479894#M496913</guid>
      <dc:creator>bricrock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-18T18:48:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Specific profiles for specific locations</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479895#M496914</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I figured this out: I had to increase the certainty factor for the custom profile in order for it to supersede the Windows10-Workstation profile.&amp;nbsp; Once that was done, proper group assignment followed, as expected.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hopefully we don't have too many custom profiles with high certainty factors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Brian&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2018 19:05:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/specific-profiles-for-specific-locations/m-p/3479895#M496914</guid>
      <dc:creator>bricrock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-18T19:05:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

