<?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 Client Provisioning Policies in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480424#M570185</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a customer that has laptops and desktops with different AnyConnect versions and compliance modules. They currently have wireless posturing working for wi-fi only.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Device&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wireless/Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;AnyConnect Version&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Compliance Module&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Identity Groups&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Laptop&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wireless&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.8.03036&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.1453.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Use existing policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Laptop&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.8.03036&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.1453.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need new policy that looks at only laptops on the LAN that doesn't conflict with desktops&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Desktop&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.10.02086&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.2336.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Need new policy that looks at desktops on the LAN and it doesn't&amp;nbsp;conflict with laptops&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;None&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Possibly three profiles on ISE required:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wireless – use the same one – same compliance module&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wired – Laptop – use same compliance module as wireless setup, this is so the laptop will not have two different compliance module (avoid conflicts in software versions)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wired – Desktop -&amp;nbsp; use new compliance module (highlight in green in table above)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need a policy to determine if the device is a laptop/desktop and if it is laptop only go to Wired Laptop policy. I was going to suggest an AD group as a condition for Laptops and one for desktops and build them into the policy.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there any better way of doing this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 16:14:11 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Anthony O'Reilly</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-10-05T16:14:11Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Client Provisioning Policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480424#M570185</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a customer that has laptops and desktops with different AnyConnect versions and compliance modules. They currently have wireless posturing working for wi-fi only.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;TABLE&gt;&lt;TBODY&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Device&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wireless/Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;AnyConnect Version&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Compliance Module&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Identity Groups&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Laptop&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wireless&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.8.03036&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.1453.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Use existing policy&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Laptop&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.8.03036&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.1453.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need new policy that looks at only laptops on the LAN that doesn't conflict with desktops&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;None&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;TR&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Desktop&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;Wired&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.10.02086&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;&lt;P&gt;4.3.2336.6145&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;Need new policy that looks at desktops on the LAN and it doesn't&amp;nbsp;conflict with laptops&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;TD&gt;None&lt;/TD&gt;&lt;/TR&gt;&lt;/TBODY&gt;&lt;/TABLE&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Possibly three profiles on ISE required:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;OL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wireless – use the same one – same compliance module&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wired – Laptop – use same compliance module as wireless setup, this is so the laptop will not have two different compliance module (avoid conflicts in software versions)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;Wired – Desktop -&amp;nbsp; use new compliance module (highlight in green in table above)&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/OL&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Need a policy to determine if the device is a laptop/desktop and if it is laptop only go to Wired Laptop policy. I was going to suggest an AD group as a condition for Laptops and one for desktops and build them into the policy.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there any better way of doing this?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 16:14:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480424#M570185</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anthony O'Reilly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-10-05T16:14:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Client Provisioning Policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480429#M570186</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Is there any better way of doing this?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;-IMO there are many ways to differentiate, but this really comes down to what you feel is best fit for your environment.&amp;nbsp; As you alluded to the external AD group is one I often see used in other condition and could very well be the easiest.&amp;nbsp; Perhaps you have each of the three in separate security groups already.&amp;nbsp; Are devices static that never move around campus?&amp;nbsp; Perhaps you could rely on device type or location if all three are subject to same areas?&amp;nbsp; Lastly, 4.8 is ancient you should really look into upgrading the AC client.&amp;nbsp; HTH!&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 16:32:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480429#M570186</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mike.Cifelli</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-10-05T16:32:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Client Provisioning Policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480814#M570205</link>
      <description>Hi Mike,&lt;BR /&gt;We currently don't use security groups.&lt;BR /&gt;4.8 will be upgraded at the beginning of next year (hopefully)&lt;BR /&gt;Laptop users roam around the buildings and branches but desktops are static.&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 08:03:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480814#M570205</guid>
      <dc:creator>Anthony O'Reilly</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-10-06T08:03:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Client Provisioning Policies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480978#M570213</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/202309"&gt;@Anthony O'Reilly&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;your best bet is to take a detailed radius live log for each of the 3 use cases and identify potential conditions that you could test/use to meet your need.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2021 11:59:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/client-provisioning-policies/m-p/4480978#M570213</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mike.Cifelli</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-10-06T11:59:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

