<?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: Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group? in Software-Defined Access (SD-Access)</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527043#M1687</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; Dont think so.&amp;nbsp; The permit or deny happens actually on the Access Contract which is associated to a Scalable Grupo. I mean, in order do differentiate devices, you´ll need differentiate Scalable Grupo.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:55:09 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Flavio Miranda</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2022-01-05T17:55:09Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527016#M1686</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hello,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there a means to deny traffic between endpoints belonging to the same Scalable Group?&amp;nbsp; This for the obvious reason to prevent lateral movement between SG members.&amp;nbsp; I am looking for the lookalike of ACI's 'Intra EPG isolation'.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:18:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527016#M1686</guid>
      <dc:creator>JAN DEVOS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-01-05T17:18:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527043#M1687</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp; Dont think so.&amp;nbsp; The permit or deny happens actually on the Access Contract which is associated to a Scalable Grupo. I mean, in order do differentiate devices, you´ll need differentiate Scalable Grupo.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 17:55:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527043#M1687</guid>
      <dc:creator>Flavio Miranda</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-01-05T17:55:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527068#M1688</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Jan,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Yes, this has been fully-supported since Day 1.&amp;nbsp; It is a very common strategy in guest networks where you don't want guest endpoints talking to each other.&amp;nbsp; It's simply a matter of creating a deny policy using the same SGT for source and destination.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I hope that helps.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Roddie&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2022 18:43:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527068#M1688</guid>
      <dc:creator>Roddie Hasan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-01-05T18:43:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527497#M1689</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Tx, Roddie. This way of defining intra-SG-isolation (by deny any &amp;lt;SG&amp;gt; &amp;lt;SG&amp;gt;, where SG is one and the same scalable group) sounds logic. I did not think enough 'out of the box'., to find this solution by myself&amp;nbsp; This merits to be documented somewhere, no?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 15:55:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527497#M1689</guid>
      <dc:creator>JAN DEVOS</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-01-06T15:55:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Isolation inside DNA Scalable Group?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527540#M1690</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;SPAN&gt;This merits to be documented somewhere, no?&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;You're right, it should be - It's been a while since I looked at any of our guidance around policy, but I will do some digging to see if we have a CVD for it.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;This strategy is definitely used widely.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Roddie&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:14:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/isolation-inside-dna-scalable-group/m-p/4527540#M1690</guid>
      <dc:creator>Roddie Hasan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2022-01-06T17:14:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

