<?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: ISE Interface utilisation design suggestion in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-interface-utilisation-design-suggestion/m-p/3484171#M510715</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;NIC bonding can provide NIC redundancy (not load sharing), so certainly recommended if goal is to survive single upstream switch outage.&amp;nbsp; Recommend be as consistent as possible across nodes so that portal and profiler configs that reference interfaces are consistent and make for easy management and swap.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Separate interfaces can help isolate traffic and in some cases a requirement, such as when SPAN or Netflow probes used, or if wish to leverage Anycast directly on node versus LB VIP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:43:40 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-04-17T15:43:40Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>ISE Interface utilisation design suggestion</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-interface-utilisation-design-suggestion/m-p/3484170#M510714</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We are working on greenfield ISE project. We will deploy ISE 2.4 on 3595 appliances. 5+2 PSNs behind Load balancer at DC and same setup at DR. Admin and MnT on separate node with HA setup.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Endpoint count is about 200K.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need suggestion on below points:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. NIC bonding for Gig0 &amp;amp; 1. Are there any issues or limitations on NIC bonding? Is it best practice to use NIC bonding? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. Should we use separate interface for profiling other than Gig 0? DHCP, SNMP, NMAP AD probes are in consideration.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt; Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;D.M.Gore&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 08:43:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-interface-utilisation-design-suggestion/m-p/3484170#M510714</guid>
      <dc:creator>dngore</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-17T08:43:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: ISE Interface utilisation design suggestion</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-interface-utilisation-design-suggestion/m-p/3484171#M510715</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;NIC bonding can provide NIC redundancy (not load sharing), so certainly recommended if goal is to survive single upstream switch outage.&amp;nbsp; Recommend be as consistent as possible across nodes so that portal and profiler configs that reference interfaces are consistent and make for easy management and swap.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Separate interfaces can help isolate traffic and in some cases a requirement, such as when SPAN or Netflow probes used, or if wish to leverage Anycast directly on node versus LB VIP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2018 15:43:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/ise-interface-utilisation-design-suggestion/m-p/3484171#M510715</guid>
      <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-17T15:43:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

