<?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 Cisco ISE - F5 LTM - Supported Topologies in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-f5-ltm-supported-topologies/m-p/4690164#M577300</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;We are exploring using our F5s to load balance authentication requests to our ISE nodes.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Looking at this How To (&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-knowledge-base/how-to-cisco-amp-f5-deployment-guide-ise-load-balancing-using/ta-p/3631159" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-knowledge-base/how-to-cisco-amp-f5-deployment-guide-ise-load-balancing-using/ta-p/3631159&lt;/A&gt;), it looks like only physical or logically inline topologies are supported.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is this possible without an inline topology? Has anyone added F5 load balancing to an existing ISE deployment in production?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:04:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mkim1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-09-20T16:04:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Cisco ISE - F5 LTM - Supported Topologies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-f5-ltm-supported-topologies/m-p/4690164#M577300</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are exploring using our F5s to load balance authentication requests to our ISE nodes.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Looking at this How To (&lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-knowledge-base/how-to-cisco-amp-f5-deployment-guide-ise-load-balancing-using/ta-p/3631159" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/security-knowledge-base/how-to-cisco-amp-f5-deployment-guide-ise-load-balancing-using/ta-p/3631159&lt;/A&gt;), it looks like only physical or logically inline topologies are supported.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Is this possible without an inline topology? Has anyone added F5 load balancing to an existing ISE deployment in production?&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Thank you.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:04:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-f5-ltm-supported-topologies/m-p/4690164#M577300</guid>
      <dc:creator>mkim1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-09-20T16:04:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Cisco ISE - Big 5 LTM - Supported Topologies</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-f5-ltm-supported-topologies/m-p/4690190#M577301</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I have an old legacy ISE deployment which does this using policy based routing.&amp;nbsp; Of course the ISE VLAN SVI is on the same layer 3 switches as the F5 SVI, making this possible. We route udp/1812, udp/1813, and in reverse the CoA ports through the F5.&amp;nbsp; No issues here with that configuration.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:33:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/cisco-ise-f5-ltm-supported-topologies/m-p/4690190#M577301</guid>
      <dc:creator>davidgfriedman</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-09-19T21:33:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

