cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
2509
Views
0
Helpful
6
Replies

ISE -SXP domain construct is not allowing Duplicated IP-SGT mappings

grusu
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Team , I need some help with SXP config in ISE . We need to duplicate IP-SGT bindings in different VN/VRF's at the borders and we created these via DNAC . In ISE we created different SXP domains one for each VRF at the Borders . However when we map in ISE the IP-SGT bindings to domains first OK while for second we get :

Any feedback or

help highly appreciated

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions

grusu
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Thank you for reply and looking forward for any feedback .Meanwhile the solution we adopted was to push same IP_SGT binding into multiple domains ....that somehow achieve the same.

Cheers ,

View solution in original post

hslai
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

This is tracked by CSCuz00603

View solution in original post

6 REPLIES 6

hslai
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

This seems a known issue. I will confirm it with the teams.

grusu
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Thank you for reply and looking forward for any feedback .Meanwhile the solution we adopted was to push same IP_SGT binding into multiple domains ....that somehow achieve the same.

Cheers ,

hslai
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Great. I am guessing you meant like this:

Screen Shot 2018-07-05 at 8.40.11 AM.png

hslai
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

This is tracked by CSCuz00603

Hi Hsing, Krish

Thanks for this link, have not found it before.

Unfortunately my scenario is a bit different then DNA scenario - i can not send the same mapping to two different SXP domains.

That is very interesting that is allowed, while adding "conflicting" mapping not.

I do have a TAC case 685182901 opened and would like to get clarification on our strategy.

If we allow to send the same mapping to multiple SXP domains, why we can not add later the same mapping ? All of them are "duplicated/conflicting". Right ?

It looks like pretty inconsistent approach. Limiting us unnecessarily. Could we have this validation disabled to allow to add duplicated/conflicting mappings ? Do you see any potential risk here ?

 

Thanks,

Michal

 

 

Michal

Agreed, this is all allowed on the switch infrastructure, it's just an ISE implementation anomaly.

You can of course just edit the one mapping entry in ISE and enter more SXP domain destinations.

A fix for individual entries needs to be tracked under CSCuz00603 (multiple exceptions in log with unified ip-sgt functional).

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: