<?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 Differentiate between Client Provisioning policies in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/differentiate-between-client-provisioning-policies/m-p/3495243#M517264</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am looking for a clearer way to differentiate between Posture and NSP in Client Provisioning policies.&amp;nbsp; The particular case is a user has 2 devices - a Corporate Windows device and a personal Windows laptop.&amp;nbsp; I am able to get the posture status working for the AD device, but I am not able to do the BYOD provisioning.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case, I am redirecting the users to the Guest portal, and enabling the BYOD flow.&amp;nbsp; When the user authenticates (member of the AD group "BYOD User"), they are sent through the BYOD flow, and this works - provisions the certificate from the ISE CA, pushes wireless config, etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This same user, when they log into a corp domain device, we have Posture enabled, the posture agent fires, does its thing, and things are grand.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here's the rub - I can do one, but not the other, depending on the order in the Client Provisioning policy.&amp;nbsp; Since the user is a member of both the Domain Users and BYOD Users groups the way in which the user logs in should be a defining factor in how the policy is processed..&amp;nbsp; When the provisioning policy for the NSP is first, I get an error in the posture agent, claiming the system is configured for the NAC agent but posture works.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I reverse the configuration and put the Posture rule first, posture works fine, but the NSP process fails with an error message that there is no policy configured for this user.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG __jive_id="116694" alt="" class="jive-image image-2" src="https://community.cisco.com/legacyfs/online/fusion/116694_pastedImage_1.png" style="max-width: 1200px; max-height: 900px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the client provisioning policy:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG __jive_id="116693" alt="" class="image-1 jive-image" src="https://community.cisco.com/legacyfs/online/fusion/116693_pastedImage_0.png" style="max-width: 1200px; max-height: 900px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I could use a pointer on the best way to move forward.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:04:14 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>bperciac</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-04-24T15:04:14Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Differentiate between Client Provisioning policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/differentiate-between-client-provisioning-policies/m-p/3495243#M517264</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am looking for a clearer way to differentiate between Posture and NSP in Client Provisioning policies.&amp;nbsp; The particular case is a user has 2 devices - a Corporate Windows device and a personal Windows laptop.&amp;nbsp; I am able to get the posture status working for the AD device, but I am not able to do the BYOD provisioning.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In this case, I am redirecting the users to the Guest portal, and enabling the BYOD flow.&amp;nbsp; When the user authenticates (member of the AD group "BYOD User"), they are sent through the BYOD flow, and this works - provisions the certificate from the ISE CA, pushes wireless config, etc.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This same user, when they log into a corp domain device, we have Posture enabled, the posture agent fires, does its thing, and things are grand.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here's the rub - I can do one, but not the other, depending on the order in the Client Provisioning policy.&amp;nbsp; Since the user is a member of both the Domain Users and BYOD Users groups the way in which the user logs in should be a defining factor in how the policy is processed..&amp;nbsp; When the provisioning policy for the NSP is first, I get an error in the posture agent, claiming the system is configured for the NAC agent but posture works.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I reverse the configuration and put the Posture rule first, posture works fine, but the NSP process fails with an error message that there is no policy configured for this user.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG __jive_id="116694" alt="" class="jive-image image-2" src="https://community.cisco.com/legacyfs/online/fusion/116694_pastedImage_1.png" style="max-width: 1200px; max-height: 900px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the client provisioning policy:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG __jive_id="116693" alt="" class="image-1 jive-image" src="https://community.cisco.com/legacyfs/online/fusion/116693_pastedImage_0.png" style="max-width: 1200px; max-height: 900px;" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I could use a pointer on the best way to move forward.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2018 15:04:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/differentiate-between-client-provisioning-policies/m-p/3495243#M517264</guid>
      <dc:creator>bperciac</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-24T15:04:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Differentiate between Client Provisioning policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/differentiate-between-client-provisioning-policies/m-p/3495244#M517265</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since one for BYOD and the other for posture client provisioning, please try combining the two rules into one.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the conditions are supposed to make up unique matches, then there might be a bug in the client provisioning policy rule matching. I would suggest logging a TAC case to debug it further.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2018 02:06:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/differentiate-between-client-provisioning-policies/m-p/3495244#M517265</guid>
      <dc:creator>hslai</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-04-25T02:06:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

