Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) Reviews

We use it for wired .1x, wireless authentication, VPN, and multi-factor authentication. We wanted to have a consistent experience for authentication and authorization of endpoints across the network, as well as security.

As a water utility organization, we're considered critical infrastructure by the feds. Everyone needs water. So it's important for us to protect our industrial control systems, our SCADA systems. ISE helps us do that by segmenting them off from the rest of the network.

And by eliminating trust, it helps us with audits, including CJIS because we have a law enforcement division, and trying to conform to the NIST standards. A lot of government agencies are becoming more familiar with the Zero Trust model and ISE makes our audits go a lot faster and a lot smoother than they used to.

The endpoint profiling feature is among the most valuable because it keeps me from having to manually maintain a MAC address bypass list to track endpoints. I can have ISE profile them for me and then put them in the right bucket.

In addition, ISE really adopts and is strong in the Zero Trust model where we consider everybody a foreign endpoint until they prove they belong on the network. ISE just seems to be built from the ground up to do that, whereas with other solutions, you have to "shoehorn" that in.

I also rate it pretty highly for securing access to our applications and network. If you have the good fortune of being a total Cisco shop, you can utilize SGTs, end to end, across the network. It can be a little tricky to get working, but once it does, it creates quite a consistent experience for any endpoint, even if it moves anywhere in the network.

I'd like to see the logging be a bit more robust in terms of what it has baked in. If I want to do any in-depth searching, I have to export all the logs to an external platform like Elastic or LogRhythm and then parse through them myself. It would be nice if I could find what I want, when I want it, on the platform itself.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for 10 years.

Now, the stability is pretty good. I've been working on it since the product launched and it was a bit sketchy. Its current state is really good right now.

The only thing we have run into was a bug when we ran virtual appliances, but that turned out to be an issue with our storage networking QoS policies. That wasn't really an ISE problem, it was more of a storage problem.

In terms of supporting a distributed network, it's pretty powerful. You can stand it up and cluster it and it scales out pretty well. You can put nodes wherever you want to service authentication requests. We're able to scale up or out and we can choose how and when we do that with either virtual or physical machines, meaning it's very flexible. 

It scales quite well. One of the things that Cisco is good at is keeping things pretty simple when you want to scale it. If you want to scale up, you get stronger admin and monitoring nodes. If you want to scale out, you get more policy service nodes. It's quite easy to stand them up, really anywhere, if you use virtuals.

We use it around our Fort Worth campus, which has about half a dozen buildings. By the end of the summer, we'll have it deployed to all of the rest of our five campuses. We have about 30 remote locations across 12 counties in North Texas and they're all using ISE. It works out pretty well.

We have it on-prem right now, but we are moving to a hybrid cloud platform on Azure for a lot of our applications, so we're starting to do proofs of concept with ISE in Azure.

TAC is pretty good. I would definitely suggest getting their solution support, which provides higher maintenance. That way, when you do get someone, you get someone who knows what they're doing. If you get the higher level of support, you get some really smart people who can fix things pretty quickly.

We used to use Aruba ClearPass. It was somewhat clunky to use and it didn't integrate well with third-party platforms. If you used Aruba, it worked great. If you didn't use Aruba, and were pointing things at ClearPass, it had some issues. We found that ISE typically handled things a little bit better. We could point anything at ISE and take care of it.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward. It's very simple to just turn the box on and plug into it. You go through a couple of settings and then you can log in to the GUI and pull in all the other nodes that you want.

After the gear came in, it took us about a day to deploy it. I started by implementing it at the local campus. That way, if I broke anything, I could just walk down the hall and not have to drive anywhere.

I stood up the first cluster, and then it was another engineer and me who worked on deploying it out to all the buildings. We started out in monitor mode, to see what it would do if we had turned it on. Once we had remediated anything that looked like it was authenticating incorrectly on the wired network, we went to closed mode and that's where we are now.

Return on investment falls in line with the business vision of securing our resources and protecting them against cyber attacks and nation-state attacks. It's hard to put a monetary value on clean water.

Licensing is a disaster. It's a mess and I hope they fix it soon.

In addition to ClearPass, we looked at Forescout. At the time we looked at Forescout, it was more of an inline product and we weren't looking to add more infrastructure between parts of the network to try to do inline authentications. It seemed easier to do it on the switch ports and have them talk to ISE.

It's a very strong platform, especially now that we're on version 3.1. It's definitely my go-to. I would recommend it over any other NAC platform.

It requires a lot of technical knowledge to actually get it off the ground and running. It's not quite as intuitive as it could be, but it's still a solid platform.

We use it for the TACACS authentication, for administrator login to network devices, and the RADIUS service for VPN and wireless authentication.

Initially, we were looking for a single sign-on for administrators to log in to every network device, but we also wanted a good way to control remote user access for logging in. Later we started using it for VPN and wireless.

It gives us a better way to authenticate users. It helps us identify a user with their device to establish trust. When a remote user is trying to access network resources, we need to find out who they are and where they want to go and make an appropriate decision about where they can and cannot go.

Resilience in cyber security is very important. Without security, nothing else can happen.

The TACACS and RADIUS have been the most valuable features so far.

Cisco ISE has almost all the features we are looking for now, but sometimes the configuration, such as the conditions, is a little difficult to understand and not so easy to navigate.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for a few years.

It is stable.

They have resolved my issues, but sometimes they have been slow.

Positive

We used to use Cisco ACS and that evolved to Cisco ISE.

The initial deployment was not a process that was easy to understand. But after I completed it, looking back, I see it was reasonable. It's just hard to understand upfront. There is a steep learning curve.

I did the migration too late, so I couldn't do a direct migration and that meant I had to kind of rebuild it.

Security is something we need, but I don't think that there is a return on investment. It causes more delays to the regular workflow.

The Essentials licensing is reasonable, but I would like the Premier version to be perpetual instead of a subscription.

An idea we are looking into is associating it with the MAC address table, so that approved devices can log in to the more restricted network.

My advice is to attend training before going for it. Otherwise, it will not be easy to understand. Each product, from ACS to ISE, does similar things, but they do them in different ways.

I rate Cisco ISE a nine out of 10. If it could become a little bit easier to understand that would help.

Right now, we are doing all wireless through ISE. We have also started migrating to wired.

We have about 20 sites. By having enough node regionalization, we have been able to have all our sites utilizing it.

It is deployed to multiple locations. We have one in Mexico, one in Kelso, two in Asia, and then two in the US.

It improved our standardization with all its policy sets being the same. 

Since migrating towards doing wired ports over ISE with 802.1X and MAB authentication, our organization's security risk has been better. We have been able to establish better layouts, so devices can move and we don't have to worry about where they need to go.

The Guest Portal is a big feature for us. 

It does a good job of establishing trust for every access request. We have had a little bit of a challenge with profiling, but we are probably about 80% there.

I have been using it for five years.

The stability is fairly good. Since we went to the 2.6 version, it has been a lot better.

Scalability is good as far as adding another node. However, if you ever wanted to increase the node that you have, then you need to buy a bigger license. You also have to build a new VM for it because you can't just scale it.

I had one problem with the portal. I got support from TAC and it worked out really well. It was really good. I would rate the support as 10 out of 10.

Positive

We did not previously use another solution.

We were looking to solve the challenge where people were moving devices that they were not supposed to.

The initial deployment was straightforward and took a couple of months. It was actually a project for a customer, then the customer backed out. So, we spent a good year without using it for anything.

The initial deployment was for a customer in Asia, so we had to deploy it in our Asia data center. We then deployed it in our US data center to kind of match that configuration.

We did use a consultant from Presidio for our first deployment project. Since then, we have been doing deployments ourselves.

Two people were needed for the deployment: the consultant and myself.

There is probably a return on investment as far as increased time for people not having to worry about devices moving around nor having to be contacted about moving them to the appropriate spot.

Its licensing could be improved. It used to be perpetual, but now they are moving away from that.

Make sure you understand where you want to deploy nodes and how far away they are from other locations since there is some latency involved.

We don't do any sort of application-based stuff right now. It is just purely assigning devices to what VLAN they are supposed to go to.

We are looking to upgrade to a newer version. Hopefully, by seeing some of the stuff at Cisco's event, I can find some more features that we could use.

I would rate the solution as eight out of 10.

We use ISE primarily for RADIUS authentications on our wireless networks and VLAN segmentation for those users.

ISE makes things easier because we all work on one system and we all have the same views, so one person is not looking at a different system. We can all look at the same system and say, "Okay, go to this link." Also, you can integrate it with DNAC (Cisco DNA Center), which is something I am very into. It helps us troubleshoot from the client all the way down to the packet. DNAC can tell us, within ISE, when they're integrated, "This is the issue they're having," and we can report back.

It's great across a distributed network for securing access to all our apps and the network. We don't have to worry about which system is going through which access layer or which security system. We can just put everything into ISE. We don't have to separate the switches from the routers to the wireless. It's all just "one-stop, go." It used to be that our switches were in a separate system for authentication routers and the wireless was all on EAP. It was confusing. ISE consolidated all that.

For my use cases, the in-depth troubleshooting into why a client can't connect or why they failed, is very valuable. I can go back to someone and say, "Hey, it's not my network. It's their certificates or user error," or something else. For my coworkers the VLAN segmentation means a client got in, it dropped them into this VLAN, and that's where they belong. They can't get out. It makes things more efficient.

Also, the fact that ISE considers all resources to be external is very important. We use ISE in our retail environments for our payment sleds. We want our payment system to be secure. Zero Trust is our whole thing. It's great that everything is external to ISE and then everything has to go through the system.

The opinion of my coworkers, and it's mine as well, is that the user interface could use some tender loving care. It seems counterintuitive sometimes. If you go to the logs, it's hard to figure out which one you need to look at. My ISE admin probably has different ideas, but for us, that's the main complaint.

I've been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about 15 years.

Uptime is great. I don't have a complaint with ISE with uptime. It's been a rockstar. As far as I'm aware, we have probably had 95 percent uptime, or even 99 percent. Nothing is 100 percent. When there's an issue, it's usually not ISE.

Scalability is our issue: keeping up with the number of licenses we need for customers and clients. That's our main concern right now. Part of that is on us and part of that is on ISE.

For us, ISE is global between retail stores, warehouses, and world headquarters. Our entire wireless network of over 30,000 devices uses it. In North America alone, we have 13,000 access points and usually around 60,000 clients.

We've had some issues with support. We usually just get our account manager involved and they get the BU online.

It depends on the role of the dice and your TAC engineer and how well they understand the issue. We've had numerous cases where we decided to say, "Okay, escalate."

Neutral

We had ClearPass but we found some difficulties with it and those were things that ISE was better at, such as EAP authentication. We had some issues with how ClearPass interacted with the Cisco wireless environment. The merging of the two technologies was hard.

We have jumped around. We were Juniper, Aruba, and then a Cisco corporate environment, and then a mixed environment. We finally consolidated those between retail, warehouses, and our world headquarters, into a unified Cisco environment with ISE as our RADIUS backbone. ISE gave us what we needed to unify all of them. We finally shut down our last ClearPass server a couple of years ago.

Being fully honest, the Cisco licensing model right now is really confusing. We don't know what licenses we have where. We have Smart licensing, but the different levels are way confusing.

There are different levels for different accesses. We have an enterprise license agreement with Cisco, but all the details of what we have with those licenses get confused in the massive amount of licenses we have, or in the different license levels we have for different geos, et cetera. The Smart license portal is there, but right now, we just don't have the time or manpower to put into that.

I give it an eight out of 10 mostly because when you get in to start configuring the details, it's hard to find some stuff. Otherwise, it's a great platform.

We use it for identity services, profiling, and locking down devices.

We're an airport, so when anybody plugs in a device, it's obviously a really big security point for us.

We have a lot of different devices that get plugged in and we really don't have the manpower to address each one individually, as far as our network goes. Cisco ISE has really cut down a lot on the size of our ticket queues and the manpower. My boss is extremely happy about that.

The solution has also eliminated trust from our organization's network architecture and that has actually been positive because we have to meet PCI compliance. It is very important for us to be able to take cards. It has also helped to improve our pen-testing scores at the end of the year.

Resilience, in cyber security, is at the top of the list. It's one of the most valuable aspects and has been extremely important for us. Before, we had mid-range scores, but over the last couple of years, between implementing ISE and a few other technologies and SIEMs, we've gotten into the 90th percentile with our pen-testing scores. We were sitting at about 75 to 80, so this is a pretty huge jump for us.

Profiling is one of the most valuable features. We have a lot of different devices between cameras, access points, and laptops that get plugged in.

Establishing trust for every access request, no matter where it comes from, is extremely important for us, especially because we are an airport entity. We do have port security implemented throughout our airport, but on the more sensitive side of things, it's a little bit more hardcore regarding what we need to allow, per security zone.

There are always some things that I would request.

I first started using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) in about 2015, but we recently just spun it up here at my current job.

The stability of the solution is a 10 out of 10.

The scalability is also a 10 out of 10.

For this particular solution, the technical support has been pretty good.

Positive

I've worked with ISE before, and it was actually my suggestion that we buy the license for it.

The initial deployment was pretty straightforward only because I had done it before. I worked on it with a colleague and taught him everything about it, just in case I was incapacitated.

From the start, including getting to an agreement, budgeting, and scheduling, the deployment took about three months.

In terms of an implementation strategy, once we got the licensing, we just stood the nodes up. Then we did the features one-by-one, with proper RFCs done, just to see, in a break-fix manner, if each thing we implemented would break something.

We used a consultant. The deployment required two people on our side. I was in charge of the initial rollout and implementation, and I'm in charge of managing it. However, if I'm not there, we have another network guy who does the day-to-day tasks and checks the logs to see if he needs to approve anything.

We have definitely seen return on investment. We have so many different security solutions in place, and ISE just works really seamlessly with them. I get to keep my job, so that's a pretty ROI from my point of view.

The pricing is fair for what it does. The only time I've really not been too crazy about the price is for Cisco Prime, which is a management solution for Cisco products.

We implemented a request for purchase and talked to a few different companies. One of the companies was Presidio. There was another company close by called Net Solutions. Three out of the five companies that we talked to were outsourcing the work to pretty much just bring in an ISE solution, so we just decided to do it in-house.

If you are on the fence about it, and you don't have someone on your team who has worked with the product before, definitely reach out to a company or a certified Cisco entity to help with the rollout. It's pretty painful if you don't know what you're doing.

Resilience is never a bad idea and it's never too late to start working towards it or to begin the journey to Zero Trust. It's very important in this day and age. 

I'm the only cyber security administrator that we have currently, so if we hadn't gotten this solution in place, I highly doubt that I would have been able to make it here to Cisco Live 2021, so it's excellent.

From 2015, when I first started using it, until now, there's not really a lot that I would ask be changed. They've been hard at it ever since I first started using it.

It's been incredible ever since we got it in place.

We are working with packets and A011X. In some cases, we also do profiling.

We are using this solution because we wanted to improve security and reduce security gaps. This is mainly for our customers.

This solution improves security. There is a new law in the Dominican Republic, where I am from. The central bank has ordered the banks to improve their security through a law. ISE is one of the start points for those organizations to start improving their security.

The solution gives us a way to provide a professional security solution to our customers.

They provide you multiple ways to achieve security, not only on-prem, but also when you have remote and guest workers. Especially post-pandemic, a lot of our customers have remote workers. So, it has been really helpful.

Its resilience gives you a better security posture. Cybersecurity resilience is very important. Security is one of the main things in my country enforced by law.

Profiling is a really good feature. However, it sometimes is a challenge for customers when there are issues with the remediation part. I would add a built-in remediation solution. That would be a very nice feature.

I have been using the solution for six to seven years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. You can install several nodes in order to scale the solution.

The technical support is really good. I would rate them as 10 out of 10. You need to know how to work with the tech support. If you don't know how to work with them, then it won't work.

Positive

We have been working for 15 years with Cisco as a Cisco partner. We like the Cisco solutions.

The deployment is complex. It takes four or five to deploy it.

Deployment takes a skilled technician. The customer's help is always needed since we need to integrate Active Directory. 

Our customers see ROI. They feel more confident about their operations. It gives them time to do other things in order to be more profitable.

It has a fair price. It is better than it was before.

We have seen Aruba ClearPass, but it is not that common in the Dominican Republic.

Organizational leaders should do constant analysis of their security posture, in order to be improving every day.

I would rate them as eight out of 10 because of the remediation feature.

We currently use it for RADIUS and TACACS authentication, but we're moving to SD Campus Fabric. We're tying that in with DNA Center, making it flow with the wireless and authentications at the port, using .1X. That's where we're headed.

We have a 10-node deployment: two PSNs, four dedicated to TACACS and RADIUS, two dedicated to guest WiFi, and two dedicated to pxGrid.

While it doesn't give us a single pane of glass, it helps identify problems more quickly. You can identify what's going on in the logs most of the time.

Also, ISE, working with DNA Center, provides a trust set. It's very important to us that the solution considers all resources to be external, so that we know who is connecting, when and where, at all times; we're not just trusting you because you're internal.

At the moment, RADIUS is the most valuable feature for us. We haven't really opened it up yet, so RADIUS is the best feature because it supplies authentication to our entire campus.

Also, when it comes to securing access to applications and the network, that goes hand-in-hand with fully developing ISE, implementing .1X, tying in DNA Center, and enabling TrustSec to look at SGTs and figure out who's who and what is what.

The knocks I have against the product are the number of bugs that we encounter, constantly, and the amount of upgrading that we have to do.

I have been using Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) for about five years.

Because of the numerous bugs we've been hit with, on a scale of one to 10, the stability is a four or five.

In theory, the scalability is great, if it all works.

We have six 17-floor buildings, and had a little more than 1,500 users on campus, pre-COVID. ISE is providing access and authentication for everyone who uses the WiFi and it helps us get into our devices.

TAC is moving a little slowly with respect to the technology. They're not keeping up. When you call in with a question, you get 10 questions fired back at you, and it just goes round and round until you figure it out.

Neutral

We previously used ACS.

If you're not going through an agreement, it's very expensive.

We didn't evaluate other options. We're a Cisco shop.

Do a deep dive. If you're a Cisco shop you really don't have a choice. It's the direction they're moving in. Cut your teeth with it and don't rely on outside sources to implement it. Implement it yourself so you know how to troubleshoot it and move forward. If you use outside sources, as soon as they leave, you're left holding the bucket and you don't understand what's going on.

I see the theory behind ISE and if we can get it to gel in our environment, it will be a beautiful thing.

We use Cisco ISE to set different policies for various profiles. For example, someone on their own device has a different set of policies and postures than a person on a company machine. 

Currently, we are using Cisco's dictionary for both device and user authentication. When I say "device authentication," I mean we authenticate users who access network devices. 

We consider the running policy when users want to access a data center server. The user is forwarded to the ISE servers to be authenticated, and they're given a password defined on the ISE for them according to the policy.

We have two virtual servers with different rules. For example, one is used to authenticate and audit, and the other to authorize and authenticate. And since most of our centers don't support full ISE integration, we use only some features. That means not all our users are not authenticated via the ISE.

It's easy to change and add policies.

Some of ISE's features need to be more agile. For example, we couldn't integrate our data because Cisco needs your data to be in its own format.

We implemented Cisco ISE about a year ago.

We have capacity limitations with retail, and we aren't integrating ISE for all the users. We have about 2,000 end-users that need to be integrated, and we added the entire thing to about 1,000 devices.

I rate Cisco support eight out of 10. We initially had difficulty integrating ISE with another solution we use from Huawei. We deleted the existing profiles defined on ISE and lost our definitions and profile features that were there before. We ordered the platform through these resellers, but they haven't been helpful, so we get more support from Cisco. They are very good.

Positive

Setting up this solution wasn't that difficult for me because I was involved with all of these projects. We implemented everything last year and deployed a portion of the modules integrated into our environment. It wasn't that difficult to install and apply to get these permissions.

A contractor came to help us deploy everything as part of the bank's data center solution. Since then, I have installed one of the components that we deployed at the time. It was a local tech company that got the platform given to them. That's how they got everything implemented with it together.

The return on investment depends on how you utilize the solution. We haven't utilized it well thus far, so I would rate it four or six out of 10.

There is a limit on the number of nodules supported. The number of users per license is limited to around 2,000, so the license price should be adjusted to take these limitations into account or we should be allowed to add more users to the same devices.

We use ISE because most of our networking devices are from Cisco, including the VIRL lab. I have to compare other vendors, but I don't think the cost difference is so much that I would switch solutions. 

I rate Cisco ISE eight out of 10. It works fine in our experience. 

The ISE product is used to make sure that folks can get access to the application servers that they need to get access to, let's say for accounting and another group like sales and marketing, they would have no business accessing each other's servers, those apps. So you would set up a policy that allows accounting to do what they have to do whether they're remote or on campus and then the sales and marketing folks could never access that. They are totally blocked. It's a virtual firewall, basically.

The way the ISE works is you can get into defining. Let's say, in my case, I've got a Windows laptop and I've got an Apple product and those have unique identifiers, unique back addresses. It would say that this in my profile so I could get to those apps with either device, 24/seven. That's how granular the ISE or these NAC Solutions can get. That you have to have that same device.

They can get into the antivirus. They will check the antivirus to see if it's the most current version and if it's not, if that's your policy, it will let you go through and access the app if the antivirus has been updated. But if the policy was that it has to be the most current version, then it can block you until you upgrade the antivirus.

As far as what could be improved, to continually be thinking about ransomware, cyber attacks, and all those kinds of things. They always have to be innovating. Always have to be improving. I can't give you anything specific because these cyber guys are always coming up with new ways to get in. You just really have to be aware of what's going on.

In the next release, I would want to see this kind of solution in the cloud as opposed to on prem because when enhancements are made to the software, if it's in the cloud, it's overnight. I mean you're not going to have to respin the servers that the license sits on, it's all microservices kinds of things in the cloud. That would be my recommendation. If I'm a customer, that's what I'm looking at - for cloud based software subscriptions.

In terms of stability, they are rock solid. If you set the policy and you implement it, it's not going to break.

They scale. You just have to buy licenses. Whether you're talking about 5,000 users or more, it's just a licensing model.

What I saw most customers trying to do was to outsource it to the partner. A value added reseller would have to do that. They typically haven't been trained. They have to go to school, get certifications and that kind of stuff. That's always a requirement, but most people weren't going to tackle that themselves. They're going to farm it out to somebody who has done it before, who has the expertise to do it.

I do anticipate increased usage. Pick a vendor, like Cisco and Aruba, because for all the threats that are out there, they are always going to have some kind of a NAC strategy. You have to. You really have to. The days of the firewall or perimeter security are over. There are just too many possible ways people can come into your network - disgruntled employees, someone that got paid off, you never know. This is always going to be here.

They're very good. All of them are very good.

It has been pretty much Cisco from the beginning. With another VAR recently, we were pitching the Aruba ClearPass. And actually the ClearPass will run on top of a Cisco infrastructure, which is kind of cool. That's unique, but the ISE doesn't go that way. You won't run ISE on top of an Aruba infrastructure, but Aruba built that solution from day one to be compatible with Cisco switches and routers and wireless stuff. I thought that was pretty compelling.

Cisco has their ISE, their Identity Services Engine. The other one that I would tell a customer to look at would be the Aruba ClearPass. I don't know enough about the Juniper Solution to make any comment about that. But those are the two that I think about the most for identity solutions.

The first part is to figure out what you want, what the customer wants to protect, who needs to be protected, and to gather all the data you can on users, contact information, the devices they use, the Mac addresses of the devices, what time of day, what apps... I mean you really have to dig into all that. It's not easy. It's hard. The bigger the customer, the more complex it is going to be. But if you don't do that, the deployment is not going to go well. Really consulting on the front end has to occur.

On the consulting part, it depends on how big the customer is, how many you're talking about - 5,000 users or 50 users. That drives the answer. I would say if you don't take 30 days to scope it correctly and document, if you do something less than that, the execution deployment is going to go sideways and that can be months. Those things are months. Those could be six months or so. You've got to pick a pilot case. You build a template, you do a small group, and then you see how the reactions are, see if the users accept that policy, make sure it's right. I would do it group by group. Accounting first, or IT first. And then you do the sales and marketing and HR and all those kinds of things.

In terms of ROI, the only thing that comes to mind is if you look at whatever the current market data says for a breach cost if you have ransomware attack or something, if you choose to rebuild your network, as opposed to paying the ransom, what does that cost? Is that $100,000 a day? Is that a million dollars a day? So whatever that cost is, go look at the cost of the NAC licensing, ISE or ClearPass. And that answers the question for you. If you can block the threats on the front end, you can avoid the whole ransomware conversation.

I have not looked at the pricing in a while. I don't really know. These companies are putting together enterprise license agreements, like a site license, and they'll do multiyear and they'll make them pretty aggressive. If you are buying three security packages from them, for example, they'll give you a significant discount. If you're at two, when you look at the cost to go to a third one, they'll just do it because it discounts the whole package altogether.

As for extra fees and costs, it is just a subscription model, pretty predictable.

I can tell you, even as a Cisco person, ISE was considered very complex and difficult to deploy. That was coming from both the customers and the partners that had to deploy it. It can be very complex and you really have to know what you're doing. The thing that we always stress with customers is to go through and build a policy first. Decide what you want to block, and who is going to have access to what, and do some due diligence on the front end because once the policy is created, then you can deploy what we have all agreed to. As opposed to just trying to wing it and figure as you go - that is not a good play. That was always the comment from the Cisco customers.

My advice to prospective users it to find a consultant or a VAR that has done it before. I think that is key. And then talk to a customer that they did it for.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE a seven. That is because it is so complex. I mean, it's not a trivial task.

We primarily use the solution for network access control solution and network device access management. The solution comes with features like posturing.

The valuable feature of the solution lies in its integration capabilities with other applications. This facilitates seamless operations like Microsoft migration across networks and call center management. The ability to segregate multiple domain users in the Access Network ensures efficient, logical management.

The tracking mechanism in Cisco ISE is relatively costly, especially its vendor-specific protocol. It would be beneficial if it could support open source or other devices with a similar checking mechanism, but unfortunately, it remains proprietary.

I have been working with the solution for the past five years.

The solution is highly-stable. I rate it a perfect ten.

The solution is scalable. We have three users for the Cisco ISE.

Their customer service and support is excellent.

Positive

The setup is straightforward. Effective planning is crucial for the setup of Cisco ISE. Placement of the virtual solution requires careful consideration of network accessibility from all branches. Different components may need placement in various areas in a large network. So, thoughtful planning for the architecture is important. It takes around two days for the deployment.

Previously, Cisco ISE had a perpetual licensing model, but now they have shifted to a subscription-based licensing system. We now have to pay recurring costs. This change in the pricing model has presented challenges for many customers accustomed to the simplicity of the previous licensing model.

I recommend this solution to all. Overall, I rate it a perfect 10.