<?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: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4039699#M558547</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;As of ISE 2.0, you can configure multiple default gateways via 'ip route' when you have multiple interfaces and it will use the correct gateway for outbound traffic.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would suggest reviewing the Load Balancing ISE Web Services section of the following CiscoLive deck:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2018/pdf/BRKSEC-3699-reference.pdf" target="_self"&gt;BRKSEC-3699: Designing ISE for Scale &amp;amp; High Availability - 2018 Orlando (Session Reference deck)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/68402iC8625B88695A9E87/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" alt="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:15:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Greg Gibbs</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-03-03T22:15:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034493#M558266</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello Team,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need suggesion...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;(We have 2 ISE hardware box SNS-3495) we are planning to connect 2x ISE (Active/Standby) with 3x interfaces.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please share if any supportive IP designing document is available.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 08:04:29 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034493#M558266</guid>
      <dc:creator>siddhesh.parab@orange.com1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-26T08:04:29Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034540#M558270</link>
      <description>Hi,&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;One IP per NIC is good unless you expect high throughput or you want NIC&lt;BR /&gt;bonding for redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Its not necessary for PAN and PSN to be in same subnet. Just ensure that&lt;BR /&gt;required ports are allowed to communication and latency is less than 200&lt;BR /&gt;msec.&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;***** Please remember to rate useful posts.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 09:06:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034540#M558270</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mohammed al Baqari</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-24T09:06:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034580#M558273</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Mohammed,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks for your response.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Is there any suppoting document which states that "&lt;SPAN&gt;Its not necessary for PAN and PSN to be in same subnet." ??&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Also please suggest if IP assignement is correct or not.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 10:10:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034580#M558273</guid>
      <dc:creator>siddhesh.parab@orange.com1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-24T10:10:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034964#M558294</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The wording of the question is a bit vague, but it sounds like you have 2 total SNS-3495 appliances (you should be aware that End of Software Support on that platform was October 2019 - &lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/identity-services-engine/eos-eol-notice-c51-737032.html" target="_self"&gt;34xx EoL Notice&lt;/A&gt; ) you are using to deploy ISE.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;If this is the case, you would have all 4 Personas (PAN, MnT, PSN, Device Admin) running on both nodes. In this scenario, you would typically only use 2x IP addresses for ISE (Gig0 for management, RADIUS, TACACS, etc; Gig1 for Guest Portal) and 1x IP address for CIMC for each node.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would suggest reviewing the following collateral:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/ise/2-7/InstallGuide27/b_ise_InstallationGuide27/b_ise_InstallationGuide27_chapter_00.html" target="_self"&gt;Install Guide - Network Deployments in ISE&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/security/ise/2-7/InstallGuide27/b_ise_InstallationGuide27/b_ise_InstallationGuide27_chapter_0110.html" target="_self"&gt;Install Guide - ISE Ports Reference&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;When using multiple interfaces for ISE services, you will also need to configure an interface alias for portal redirection. I would suggest reviewing the section on Load Balancing ISE Web Services in this Cisco Live presentation:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ciscolive.com/global/on-demand-library.html?search=ise%20scale&amp;amp;ssoToken=pp51582577130912001ji8srem#/session/1564526712328001JTH3" target="_self"&gt;BRKSEC-3432 - Advanced ISEArchitect, Design and Scale ISE for your production networks&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Cheers,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Greg&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:08:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4034964#M558294</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg Gibbs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-24T21:08:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4035266#M558316</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Helo Greg,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank for the information.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Deployment scenario that you have mentioned is correct. We&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;have 2 total SNS-3495 appliances and we are aware that it is EOS &amp;amp; EOL.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;As you mentioned "you would typically only use 2x IP addresses for ISE (Gig0 for management, RADIUS, TACACS, etc; Gig1 for Guest Portal)"&amp;nbsp; so cant we configure Gig 2 for TACACS ??&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 09:41:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4035266#M558316</guid>
      <dc:creator>siddhesh.parab@orange.com1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-25T09:41:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4035755#M558335</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;ISE will listen for TACACS+ on Gig2 if you prefer to use a separate interface. This is all dependent on your overall architecture and design (routing, security zones, etc).&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Both RADIUS and TACACS+ are lightweight protocols, so unless you expect to overload the interface bandwidth there may be no value in using separate interfaces if the same node will be processing both.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would suggest also reviewing the following:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/ise-performance-amp-scale/ta-p/3642148" target="_self"&gt;ISE Performance &amp;amp; Scale&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/ise-tacacs-deployment-amp-sizing-guidance/ta-p/3612253" target="_self"&gt;ISE TACACS+ Deployment &amp;amp; Sizing Guidance&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:23:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4035755#M558335</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg Gibbs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-02-25T22:23:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4038416#M558488</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello Gerg,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Please find attached scenario.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is it possible to keep Gig 0 &amp;amp; Gig 2 in same subnet. (Gig 0 for Mgmt &amp;amp; Gig 2 for TACACS)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Or it is better to use one single IP for TACACS &amp;amp; Mgmt.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 09:18:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4038416#M558488</guid>
      <dc:creator>siddhesh.parab@orange.com1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T09:18:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4038858#M558511</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I would not see the value in using separate interfaces in the same subnet for the separate services. Using separate interfaces would typically involve those interfaces sitting on different subnets.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2020 20:56:51 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4038858#M558511</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg Gibbs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-02T20:56:51Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4039069#M558524</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes you are correct.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;So if we use Gig 0 for Mgmt &amp;amp; TACACS and Gig 1 for Guest then that will be a best approch.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;however Gig 0 &amp;amp; Gig 1 in different subnet and connected to different switch then what will be my gateway ??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 07:51:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4039069#M558524</guid>
      <dc:creator>siddhesh.parab@orange.com1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-03T07:51:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE IP Interfaces configuration</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4039699#M558547</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;As of ISE 2.0, you can configure multiple default gateways via 'ip route' when you have multiple interfaces and it will use the correct gateway for outbound traffic.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I would suggest reviewing the Load Balancing ISE Web Services section of the following CiscoLive deck:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.ciscolive.com/c/dam/r/ciscolive/us/docs/2018/pdf/BRKSEC-3699-reference.pdf" target="_self"&gt;BRKSEC-3699: Designing ISE for Scale &amp;amp; High Availability - 2018 Orlando (Session Reference deck)&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Excerpt:&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;span class="lia-inline-image-display-wrapper lia-image-align-inline" image-alt="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" style="width: 400px;"&gt;&lt;img src="https://community.cisco.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/68402iC8625B88695A9E87/image-size/medium?v=v2&amp;amp;px=400" role="button" title="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" alt="Screen Shot 2020-03-04 at 9.04.50 am.png" /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2020 22:15:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-ip-interfaces-configuration/m-p/4039699#M558547</guid>
      <dc:creator>Greg Gibbs</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-03-03T22:15:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

