<?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: Alternatives to ISE for NAC? in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310759#M566313</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Good night from here,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Before going into ISE or ACS I had the time to test NAC solutions for security corporate reasons. I came across &lt;STRONG&gt;PacketFence&lt;/STRONG&gt; as an Open Source Solution (and for education purposes).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then configured everything with low resources, then upgraded into ISE 2.7p3. Everything started easy after we already had our network adapted for that.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;hope that my opinion would work for you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 00:31:40 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Angel_Inglese</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-03-20T00:31:40Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309436#M566243</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;ISE is such a big cumbersome beast. Are there any commonly used alternatives for NAC on Cisco switches and wireless?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 07:35:57 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309436#M566243</guid>
      <dc:creator>jmcgrady1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-18T07:35:57Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309453#M566245</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Freeradius&amp;nbsp; or MS NPAS&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;or other commercials :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/cisco-ise-identity-services-engine-alternatives-and-competitors" target="_blank"&gt;https://www.itcentralstation.com/products/cisco-ise-identity-services-engine-alternatives-and-competitors&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 08:07:45 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309453#M566245</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-18T08:07:45Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309590#M566253</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;ISE is such a big cumbersome beast.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;-This is because it is the best option on the market in regard to NAC.&amp;nbsp; Well worth the time and investment especially if already in a Cisco centric environment.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2021 12:27:56 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4309590#M566253</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mike.Cifelli</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-18T12:27:56Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310759#M566313</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Good night from here,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Before going into ISE or ACS I had the time to test NAC solutions for security corporate reasons. I came across &lt;STRONG&gt;PacketFence&lt;/STRONG&gt; as an Open Source Solution (and for education purposes).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Then configured everything with low resources, then upgraded into ISE 2.7p3. Everything started easy after we already had our network adapted for that.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;hope that my opinion would work for you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 00:31:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310759#M566313</guid>
      <dc:creator>Angel_Inglese</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-20T00:31:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310774#M566316</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I'll do some research on what a VM ISE implementation would look like when specifying "low resources". My first run through the sizing estimator told me i need a VM with 96 cpu cores!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 03:35:36 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310774#M566316</guid>
      <dc:creator>jmcgrady1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-20T03:35:36Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310870#M566318</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;hey ! that's huge!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;well please consider a lab environment first: Standalone mode VM that will serve one SSID. (8 vCPU / 8 GB RAM / 300 GB Storage)&lt;BR /&gt;Then grow up to PoC lab: Two HA nodes serving WiFi and cable. (2x&amp;nbsp;8 vCPU / 16 GB RAM / 300 GB Storage)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I read the community post regarding ISE deployments.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;And took the risk with low impact considerations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Started with specific groups such as Guests for HQ then remote offices, one by one (only 10 sites).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/cisco-ise-amp-nac-resources/ta-p/3621621" target="_blank"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-documents/cisco-ise-amp-nac-resources/ta-p/3621621&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;of course, this was a lapse time of 3 months (the demo license period). and after this we decided to move on with ISE 2x SNS 3615 HA mode with Mnt node over VMWare for log storage in a SAN.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;hope that helps,&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 15:25:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310870#M566318</guid>
      <dc:creator>Angel_Inglese</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-20T15:25:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Alternatives to ISE for NAC?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310874#M566319</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;you can start with 32GB with less CPU&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2021 15:51:08 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/alternatives-to-ise-for-nac/m-p/4310874#M566319</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-03-20T15:51:08Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

