EOS of 35x5 server hardware

[jpoh]

Hi Team,

customer has a few ISE cluster running 2.4 on 35x5 hardware server. They like to expand on PSN by buying 35x5 server. Unfortunately we have EoS 35x5 server. The next appliance is 36x5 but ISE 2.4 cannot run on 36x5 hardware. It is also not possible for customer to upgrade 2.4 to 2.6, which is a big exercise for them just to expand on PSN. This force them to expand using VM. 

With this recent EoS of 35x5 hardware, can we at least get ISE 2.4 to run on 36x5 server? Else we are just forcing customer in such situation to go for VM. 

Any other alternative? Appreciate for any better solution.

Regards &

Have a nice day

[Arne Bier]

Check with the ISE PM what their plans are to have ISE 2.4 run on the newer hardware. My understanding was that the current ISE 2.4 boot process is hard coded in such a way to only expect SNS 34 or 35 hardware.  it's not "forwards" compatible to cater for newer hardware detection.  The solution would be for Cisco to publish a new ISE 2.4 .iso that recognizes the hardware boot process.

Come on ... upgrades are fun :-)

[Nadav]

The whole strict appliance model approach was also used for the old Cisco MCS servers which hosted CUCM. You want to install version X.Y on a certain MCS model? If it's not in the xml file of the upgrade ISO, it cancels the upgrade. Awful stuff.  

[Damien Miller]

Here's hoping PM comes around and we get 2.4 support on the 3600's. Customers want new hardware but don't want to take the risk running 2.6.

[Nidhi · Accepted solution]

Hi, 

Currently 2.4 code is not supported on 36XX platforms. 

Thanks,

Nidhi

[jpoh]

I know ISE 2.4 don;t support 36x5 hardware, as this is in release note. Any PM out there that can advise whether 2.4 will support 36x5 hardware in roadmap? 

Regards &

Have a nice day

[Jason Kunst · Accepted solution]

You can get to our PMs through http://cs.co/ise-feedback
Or through partner/sales team internally they can reach out

[Nidhi]

Hi, 

Currently 2.4 code is not supported on 36XX platforms. 

Thanks,

Nidhi