<?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 Radware Load Balancing  + ISE in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radware-load-balancing-ise/m-p/3585894#M519325</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello- I have a customer using Radware for load balancing and I am looking to see if other customers have implemented ISE in an environment also leveraging Radware?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:00:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator />
    <dc:date>2017-12-05T17:00:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Radware Load Balancing  + ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radware-load-balancing-ise/m-p/3585894#M519325</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello- I have a customer using Radware for load balancing and I am looking to see if other customers have implemented ISE in an environment also leveraging Radware?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:00:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radware-load-balancing-ise/m-p/3585894#M519325</guid>
      <dc:creator />
      <dc:date>2017-12-05T17:00:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Radware Load Balancing  + ISE</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radware-load-balancing-ise/m-p/3585895#M519327</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have only received a couple queries on using Radware over past&amp;nbsp; few years.&amp;nbsp; Maybe customers have deployed, but not much discussion and expect overall penetration low in comparison to other solutions.&amp;nbsp; Although F5 guide has prescriptive configuration for F5,&amp;nbsp; most of guide is dedicated to concepts and requirements for load balancing.&amp;nbsp; Some key elements include:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;ability to persist RADIUS Auth (1645/1812) and Accounting (1646/1813) based on Calling-Station-ID.&amp;nbsp; Source IP may work for many NADs with few clients, but often not suitable with larger access switches and wireless controllers.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;ability to maintain persistence for specific flows. In other words, per-packet UDP load balancing will cause RADIUS to fail.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;support for fragmentation and reassembly of RADIUS packets and option to set max/min fragment values.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;ability to check health based on RADIUS service checks&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Not required, but helpful if LB can NAT CoA packets from PSN to LB VIP address.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Not require direct server return (DSR) to ensure traffic can be funneled back through LB and have PSN address translated back to RADIUS VIP.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Optionally support LB for http and profiler traffic.&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;passthru for some flows without requiring LB processing (like F5 IP forwarding).&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;/Craig&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2017 23:59:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/radware-load-balancing-ise/m-p/3585895#M519327</guid>
      <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-12-05T23:59:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

