<?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 Node Groups and ISE Upgrade in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/node-groups-and-ise-upgrade/m-p/3462585#M535719</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am working on an upgrade for a client to go from ISE 1.3 to 2.1.&amp;nbsp; We actually stood up a parallel deployment running 2.1, restored data and now are working on migrating over to it.&amp;nbsp; We have new VIPs setup on the F5 for the 2.1 deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is node groups and how the communication actually works now in 2.1.&amp;nbsp; Since we restored the config the node group name is the same on the 1.3 deployment as the 2.1 deployment and the PSNs are on the same subnet.&amp;nbsp; Can that cause any issues?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can rename the node group on the 2.1 side, but want to understand the ramification if I leave it the way it is.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:34:06 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2017-06-01T15:34:06Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Node Groups and ISE Upgrade</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/node-groups-and-ise-upgrade/m-p/3462585#M535719</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am working on an upgrade for a client to go from ISE 1.3 to 2.1.&amp;nbsp; We actually stood up a parallel deployment running 2.1, restored data and now are working on migrating over to it.&amp;nbsp; We have new VIPs setup on the F5 for the 2.1 deployment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My question is node groups and how the communication actually works now in 2.1.&amp;nbsp; Since we restored the config the node group name is the same on the 1.3 deployment as the 2.1 deployment and the PSNs are on the same subnet.&amp;nbsp; Can that cause any issues?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I can rename the node group on the 2.1 side, but want to understand the ramification if I leave it the way it is.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:34:06 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/node-groups-and-ise-upgrade/m-p/3462585#M535719</guid>
      <dc:creator>paul</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-01T15:34:06Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Node Groups and ISE Upgrade</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/node-groups-and-ise-upgrade/m-p/3462586#M535720</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Each deployment can use same Node Group name.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 15:56:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/node-groups-and-ise-upgrade/m-p/3462586#M535720</guid>
      <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2017-06-01T15:56:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

