<?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: Wired client authentication | Radius server or ISE? in Software-Defined Access (SD-Access)</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/wired-client-authentication-radius-server-or-ise/m-p/4114229#M720</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, it's a poor question if asked that way since both are technically correct. ISE is of course a radius server, and you can leverage a third party radius server + ISE for SDA. If they had used creative wording then maybe they were trying to trick you, you can't run SDA with only a third party radius server, you still need ISE. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ex. &lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-documents/how-to-use-group-based-policies-with-3rd-party-radius-using/ta-p/3930041" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-documents/how-to-use-group-based-policies-with-3rd-party-radius-using/ta-p/3930041&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:26:40 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-07-06T21:26:40Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Wired client authentication | Radius server or ISE?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/wired-client-authentication-radius-server-or-ise/m-p/4114120#M719</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I recently ran across a practice test question that went along the lines of:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"When a wired client connects to an edge node in an SDA fabric, what decides if the client has access to the network?"&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The choices included ISE and a radius server. Wouldn't they both be correct answers?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Any input is appreciated.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2020 18:43:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/wired-client-authentication-radius-server-or-ise/m-p/4114120#M719</guid>
      <dc:creator>UncleJP</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-07-06T18:43:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Wired client authentication | Radius server or ISE?</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/wired-client-authentication-radius-server-or-ise/m-p/4114229#M720</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Yes, it's a poor question if asked that way since both are technically correct. ISE is of course a radius server, and you can leverage a third party radius server + ISE for SDA. If they had used creative wording then maybe they were trying to trick you, you can't run SDA with only a third party radius server, you still need ISE. &lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;ex. &lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-documents/how-to-use-group-based-policies-with-3rd-party-radius-using/ta-p/3930041" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-documents/how-to-use-group-based-policies-with-3rd-party-radius-using/ta-p/3930041&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2020 21:26:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/software-defined-access-sd-access/wired-client-authentication-radius-server-or-ise/m-p/4114229#M720</guid>
      <dc:creator>Damien Miller</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-07-06T21:26:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

