<?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: Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3718915#M507308</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I tried it in ISE 2.1. First of all there is no possibility to order the authorization profiles in the permissions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What obviously happens:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;All profiles are combined in one authorization RADIUS packet&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;In case multiple values for the same attribute exists (e.g. multiple VLANs), the &lt;STRONG&gt;first matched &lt;/STRONG&gt;attribute is sent to the NAD&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I guess I'll start with this approach now to build a more modular ruleset. Furthermore it's more fault tolerant. For example if there is the policy to reauthenticate all dot1x clients every 2 hours, there is one profile for this purpose. The reauthentication timer is not hidden in multiple profiles. So there is a single source of truth &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:52:39 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Johannes Luther</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-10-04T05:52:39Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717318#M507295</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi board,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;short question regarding authorization policy design:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;In the past I assigned &lt;STRONG&gt;one authorization profile&lt;/STRONG&gt; per &lt;STRONG&gt;authorization rule&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Out of coincidence I saw that &lt;STRONG&gt;multiple authorization profiles&lt;/STRONG&gt; may be assigned to &lt;STRONG&gt;one authorization rule.&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I think this is cool, because someone could build a "modular" authorization toolbox:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;E.g.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;AuthZ profile: Reauth60 (Reauthentication every 60 minutes)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;AuthZ profile: WLAN_QoSprofile_Gold (QoS-profile: Gold)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;AuthZ profile: WLAN_QoSprofile_Silver (QoS-profile: Silver)&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;AuthZ profile: VLAN ID 100&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;AuthZ profile: VLAN ID 101&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If I want to assign a WLAN client to VLAN 101 with QoS profile gold, the following profiles are used:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- WLAN_QoSprofile_Gold&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;- VLAN ID 100&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;However I have no idea how this works and the pro and cons regarding this approach. Examples:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;What happens if in profile1 VLAN a is assigned and in profile2 VLANb and both profiles are included in one rule. What happens?
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Both VLAN IDs are sent to the NAD? .. no idea what the NAD does in such a case&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;The first / last used authorization profile has priority?&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;...&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;Are there any performance / best practice impacts?&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Anybody knows that? Do you know a Cisco doc describing multiple profiles in one rule? How do you design your rules?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Best regards&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Johannes&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:20:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717318#M507295</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johannes Luther</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-02T12:20:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717326#M507298</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to think of an example where I would apply&amp;nbsp;two auth z policies with the same common task, and I can't.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My thought would be any time you need to apply like common tasks with different results, that would be an additional rule in your policy set.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;My assumption would be if you tried to overlap, ISE would apply your result in order (top - down) but without testing, I couldn't be certain. Maybe on read-only Friday I will test and get back to you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:32:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717326#M507298</guid>
      <dc:creator>anthonylofreso</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-02T12:32:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717331#M507301</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/297951"&gt;@anthonylofreso&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to think of an example where I would apply&amp;nbsp;two auth z policies with the same common task, and I can't.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Me neither - but I want to understand how the system reacts if this happens (e.g. due to a misconfiguration). I can test this as well, but I was hoping for a proper documentation &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:"&gt;😄&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;However, I'm with your assumption - I also guess the last one wins.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'm curious: Are you using multiple AuthZ profiles in a single rule or not?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:37:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717331#M507301</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johannes Luther</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-02T12:37:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717336#M507306</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am not. We primarily use AuthZ profiles to apply DACLs to interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;To be honest, I hadn't noticed the +/- in the permissions column for multiple Auth Z policies. We've applied multiple common tasks (VLAN + DACL) but only via a single profile since they are check boxes.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I'd be curious to know what others use this functionality for&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2018 12:44:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3717336#M507306</guid>
      <dc:creator>anthonylofreso</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-02T12:44:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Authorization permissions in one or multiple authorization profiles</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3718915#M507308</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I tried it in ISE 2.1. First of all there is no possibility to order the authorization profiles in the permissions.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;What obviously happens:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;UL&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;All profiles are combined in one authorization RADIUS packet&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;LI&gt;In case multiple values for the same attribute exists (e.g. multiple VLANs), the &lt;STRONG&gt;first matched &lt;/STRONG&gt;attribute is sent to the NAD&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I guess I'll start with this approach now to build a more modular ruleset. Furthermore it's more fault tolerant. For example if there is the policy to reauthenticate all dot1x clients every 2 hours, there is one profile for this purpose. The reauthentication timer is not hidden in multiple profiles. So there is a single source of truth &lt;span class="lia-unicode-emoji" title=":slightly_smiling_face:"&gt;🙂&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 05:52:39 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/authorization-permissions-in-one-or-multiple-authorization/m-p/3718915#M507308</guid>
      <dc:creator>Johannes Luther</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-10-04T05:52:39Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

