I think scalability is there. We run a two-node cluster. We haven't had a need to add any more, but I know we could add policy nodes pretty simply if needed.

The scalability has been fine for us. We're actually in the process of possibly deploying more PSN (Policy Service) Nodes, so we'll see if that helps. But scalability hasn't been an issue. I don't think we're running into device count limitations or VM performance [issues].

We're around the 600-700 mark in terms of the number of devices in our company.

It is a very scalable product. The deployment of Cisco is completely contingent on the number of endpoints that we have. It's just a matter of buying a license and uploading it. So scalability is not a problem at all. 

Scalability is amazing. We have about 1,000 nodes and we're growing every site, so it is an ongoing project. Our project keeps expanding and it doesn't end at a specific point. It covers everything that we are working with, all the devices because we have computers, switches, routers, and so on and so forth and everything is fantastic.

Cisco ISE is highly scalable, particularly for device authentication, as we have 3,000 switches in our environment.

It scales well. We have no concerns at all. When we decided to roll out 802.1X, we only had it on our endpoint, just laptops. Then we said, "Well, let's scale it out to the wireless access point." We went from 2,000 endpoints to 10,000, since people have mobiles. When we rolled it out to do posture checks on everything wireless, we had no issues.

It's scalable, but we get back to the point that you have to deploy multiple nodes across the environment to get the bandwidth for larger environments.

Assisting a larger number of users in gaining access and guiding them through the process of getting on Cisco ISE has been seamless.

Cisco ISE is very scalable.

We are using the product in about 500 devices in our organization.

The scalability reports that we could easily handle a million users. 

The beauty of Identity Service Engine is the fact that there's really no environment too small. If you have 500 to 1000, maybe up to 2000 endpoints, We're talking laptops, mobile devices, access point switches, etcetera. You're really not too small to deploy Identity Service Engine. The beauty of the multi-persona design of the Identity Service Engine is that you can leverage that capability to split off those PSN personas which is actually the persona within the Identity Service Engine that processes all of that high rate of radius authorization and authentication traffic. So the scalability of ISE is really well thought out. It was really well thought out from the get-go. You can also split off the admin personas and the monitoring and logging personas as well to give you that horizontal scale. I'm not sure today what the exact endpoint count that ISE scales to is, but it is certainly into the hundreds of thousands of endpoints.

A lot of customers that I see are small deployments, maybe a single node or a two-node cluster, but we know that the product does scale. We do have customers that scale beyond just the two nodes. It's proven to be a scalable product.

In terms of scalability, we have multiple policy nodes. I know we have about ten different devices on other appliances. As far as I can imagine, setting up another policy node or something would be pretty simple. It would just require hardware to be purchased.

It is certainly scalable enough in our environment. We have between 3,000 and 4,000 managed nodes, not counting all of the extra stuff including every type of IOT thing you can imagine: printers, cameras, sensors, a security system. It also doesn't include phones, and we have a phone on every desk, whether there's a user there or not. 

When you initially think you've only got, say, 3,000 or 3,500 users, how do you get 15,000 devices on your network? But that's the sad reality these days. Everything is on the network. Every employee typically has three devices on the network at any given time: a phone, a tablet, and a computer. The numbers ratchet up quickly. 

The good news is that it's definitely scalable in our environment to handle 25,000 devices spread across between 150 to 200 locations, some of which are very remote.

So when it comes to the scalability of ISE, we are a massive organization with offices ranging from two people to hospitals with over 10,000 people. We are able to rapidly deploy products. Sometimes, we have mobile sites that we just spin up—especially during COVID. For example, we had to deploy a lot of COVID assessment centers. We were also able to rapidly deploy a lot of these instances. Even when we had to integrate Meraki products for some of our smaller sites, scalability-wise, it's really flexible and very scalable. If an organization of our size can easily use it to adapt, I don't see any reason why it would be an issue for anybody to scale this product.

We can scale Cisco ISE up using VMs.

I've never had a problem with Cisco. Cisco has always scaled well, so it's pretty good.

Scalability with ISE goes back to the setup, and that initial planning phase. You have to identify your networks and your devices and what you want to do.

Once you get it set up, then scalability is not an issue. Definitely, the more complex your network, the more time you're going to spend on the pre-setup stage.

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.

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

Cisco ISE's scalability is nice. However, not many people can deploy Cisco ISE in a very large environment. In other words, there are no large environments that are hitting around 100,000 plus clients for active concurrent sessions. If you're trying to create multiple deployments to distribute the workload evenly, I don't like that there's no centralized management platform for Cisco ISE. You still have to go into each deployment and do your configuration.

Cisco ISE scales exceptionally well. However, we have encountered issues while updating to the latest version. It is a significant endeavor due to the extensive scope of our deployment. Nevertheless, I believe this challenge is not unique to us; it appears to be primarily related to the scale of the deployment. Currently, we have nearly 15,000 devices.

You can scale your ISE. You can use ISE for a company of any size: for a small company, a mid-size company, or a large company. ISE can be installed in a cluster-distributed environment. Thus, there is a lot of scalability and resiliency when using ISE.

I would rate the scalability as eight or nine out of 10.

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.

We have no problem with the management of our infrastructure when we need more accountability from the platform. Scalability was fine. There is no problem.

We have 6,000 people in Brazil using the solution. 

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.

I would say that this product is scalable because we are using it in our central headquarters, in addition to several branch offices.

We can scale Cisco ISE by adding additional licenses or servers.

It's expensive to scale Cisco ISE, but our situation is stable so we don't need to scale it for now. In the future, we will need a more scalable solution.

It is used for all our departments, all end-users, all corporate endpoints. And when we use MAC Authentication Bypass, we include printers and VIP cell phones.

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 the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. To scale the solution, we must decide which persona should be added. There are different personas for management, monitoring, and policy enforcement. It needs some calculations. I have a lot of clients. One of my clients has 20,000 to 50,000 users.

We haven’t even scraped to the surface of what the tool could do. It's very scalable, and we will try to use it as much as we can in the future.

The product is scalable. I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. We have medium-sized businesses as our clients. 

It seems to be pretty good for what we're doing with it.

It isn't something we have had to deal with.

It can be scaled very quickly by adding more nodes to the solution. The scalability is very good.

We have it deployed in three data centers in Austin, Texas, Lewisville, Texas, and one in Poland. It's a distributed deployment and we have around 8,000 endpoints on it so far.

The product’s scalability is great. We do not have any issues. We could scale it up without any problems.

Scalability is really good. The number of possible nodes in deployment is high. I don't know the exact number, but it's really high. Scalability is not a problem.

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.

Scalability-wise, it's great. We have plenty of space to add additional nodes. Right now, the ones we do have are not being utilized to a hundred percent, so if we ever do need to add additional, it seems pretty straightforward.

As long as we have the funds to purchase the license, Cisco ISE is highly scalable.

You can build a distributed model or architecture, and you can scale out with a number of PSN nodes. So Cisco ISE can grow as you grow.

Cisco ISE is a scalable solution. Our environment has a cluster distributed across three countries and seven nodes. It would be very easy to add another node or remote site.

It is easily scalable.

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

We've actually scaled before and have never had an issue.

The scalability is good and quite easy to do. If you have the licenses, then anything is possible.

We worked with customers. The last one that we worked with had 10,000 licenses, i.e., 10,000 endpoints. We started working with the corporate office, then we replicate to the distribution centers.

The scalability is also good.

The scalability is also a 10 out of 10.

Its scalability is also great. We have 350 users. 

It scales quite well. Essentially, you can scale up to about 500,000 users, and most of my customers are south of that.

It's very scalable. We have it deployed in two data centers, and we're managing about 10,000 endpoints.

Scalability is pretty good, provided that you design it properly from the get-go. There are design limitations, depending on the platforms, especially the hardware platforms that you select. On the scalability front, it's not a product that can be virtualized very well — that's an issue. Because in the world of virtualization, customers are always looking for products that they can put in their virtual environments. But ISE is not a truly virtualized product, as in it doesn't do a lot of resource sharing.

As a result, it's not truly virtualized. Although they do have the VM offering, it's not virtualization in the proper sense of the word. That's one limitation of the product. It's very resource-intensive. As a result, you always end up purchasing additional hardware, actual ISE physical servers. Whereas, we would like to have it deployed in virtual machines if it was better designed. I think when it comes to resource utilization, it probably isn't optimized very well. Ideally, we would like to have a better-virtualized platform.

It's stable. We deployed with a client in petroleum with about 200 users worldwide, and it was stable.

It's only scalable up to 20,000 users. 

In terms of scalability, it needs to be reactivated, which means that I need to add more nodes. It's got its own design limitations. We had only a two-node deployment in it. We need to add more hardware and we need to reduce so many things. It's not an easy option to scale this hardware. Scaling, in general, is very difficult.

We have roughly 9,000 users on this product currently.

Everyone in our company is using Cisco. In terms of users, we have about 1,500, however, in terms of endpoints we have, that would be closer to about 3,000 to 4,000 endpoints, including wireless gadgets, switches, laptops, phones, and all that. We use it on a daily basis.

Scalability probably might be an issue. Before we bought ISE, we did sizing for each. We looked at the number of users in the organization, 1,500,  and then we used a factor to look at the uppermost band. We decided we would have to go for 4,000 licenses or 4,500 licenses. We multiplied by three. Based on that, we went for a certain hardware model.

This time, the hardware model we are going for supports up to or has the capability to support up to 10,000 users or endpoints. When we go for that, we will have used even less than 50% of what their hardware is capable of. Above 10,000, there's another hardware model that we're generally expected to go for. 

Basically, when you get the right model, when you do the right scaling, it will be very scalable. However, from the onset, you need to write hardware for USI.

The solution is more meant for enterprise-level organizations. It's not really for small companies, however, that has more to do with the pricing.

The solution is quite scalable.

We started with two clients and we've since scaled up to 20 clients.

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.

In terms of scalability, it's available on the cloud, but I have not yet tested the features on the cloud.

It is used mainly by our customers, who use it for their entire infrastructure. They have anywhere from 50,000 to 100,000 users.

It is scalable. We have around 350 users. We required two staff members for maintenance but they don't have enough knowledge so we have to reach out externally for more help. 

I've had no issues with scalability. I started using it on two campuses, and now I'm using it across the country and scaling it across subsidiaries in other countries.

The controller has to manage a certain number of access points and we did not see any problems with the scalability. It is able to handle more access points than we need it for.

It's very scalable. We have deployed it globally.

From what I have read, the scalability seems good. We haven't had to deal much with that. We have two nodes and about 2,000 sessions going at once.

I haven't really tried to scale ISE, but I don't think we'd face any challenges with hard gentle scaling.

I've never tried to scale it up.

We have it deployed in multiple locations with users across the US and Canada.

It's scalable. It can grow with your network. You can create new nodes or move everything from local to the cloud. It's easy to spin up a VM, so you can put it on a VM real quick and be done within a couple of days. But you have to know what you're doing. You can't just do it with the assumption that you can copy and just redeploy it. ISE doesn't work like that. It has to be done properly.

We don't use its scalability. I would rate it as five out of 10.

It's scalable, but we need to upgrade some of our hardware to support more users.

Our SDA fabric has about 1,500 users that we are authenticating. We have plans to use it throughout the City of Helsinki, which has about 38,000 personnel whom we will need to authenticate in the future.

Cisco's scalability depends on the design - small deployments are not scalable.

We are using the solution with around 200 people and we had no problems with scalability. Most of our clients are small businesses.

We're actually upgrading right now from a small version to a medium-sized one. It's not as simple as I'd like it to be for scalability, but it's still working well.

ISE is scalable.

I'm not sure how many users are on the solution ultimately. Our reach is pretty global. I'm not with the network team, so I can't speak to the ability for the solution to scale.

The solution’s scalability is good. We cater the solution to medium-sized businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

ISE is extensible. It can be deployed for small and large organizations, and can even be distributed and centralized. 

Scalability is good.

I have found this solution is scalable, especially the latest versions. The older versions, have to have some additions in order to make them scalable. However, I think they have resolved this issue.

We have had customers of all business sizes using this solution, from small to enterprise companies.

In terms of scalability, you need to factor in your licenses. With a virtual platform, the scalability is more than sufficient. We have over one thousand users. 

We've got two engineers that look after the ISE environment.

I have found Cisco ISE to be scalable.

We have approximately 500 people using this solution in my organization.

It is a scalable solution.

This solution can work well for large enterprises that have a larger environment, such as a distributed environment. Mostly, from my organization's perspective, we deal with SMEs.

The solution is quite scalable. 

In terms of scalability, I think it's scalable. Quite scalable and very intricate. Easy to use and provides good support. 

It is scalable because we use a network load balancer at the front of the PSN. It can be extended as we want to multiply. It's scalable to our environment. We have around 8,000 users and we are planning to expand it. 

Having a Cisco consolidated experience with this type of products, the product encounters very little of no scalability problem.

It's scalable. We have more than 500 users. We are planning to use more features and to integrate it with other branches that we have. It's a way to have a global solution across all branches.

I have found Cisco ISE to be scalable.

We have two of the Cisco ISE devices installed.

Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is easy to scale.

I have approximately 450 Apex end-based licenses.

Currently, we don't have plans to expand.

Cisco ISE is very scalable.

On our network, we use Cisco ISE as a platform utility to support three thousand users.

We've been able to scale it for our needs.

It could be more scalable. It's easy to scale initially, but it will become very difficult at a certain point. In the beginning, it's in the previous environment, and it's pretty easy. But after we integrate it, we need to do a couple more to scale the product, which is more difficult.

We have less than 300 people using it worldwide. We deal with an airline company, so people who come to use it aren't many, but it's available to everyone from everywhere around the world.

The scalability is good - currently, we don't have an internet bandwidth greater than 10GB, so it's efficient for us.

We currently have around 400 users and we only need two staff members for maintenance. It is being used extensively because all of the users are dependent on it. If the ISE is down no one will be able to authenticate.

It is very scalable. Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine) is a nice solution.

Scalability is good. We have 60,000 users. 

We've had no issues with scalability.

The produt scales well.

It is scalable.

Cisco ISE  is scalable.

We have approximately 200 people using this solution in my organization.

It is scalable. 

We use it enterprise-wide, around the world. That would indicate it's pretty scalable.

The scalability is good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have this solution deployed to 6,000 or more users. 

It's highly scalable but it's challenging to scale-up non-Cisco products. We currently have around 50 users and 11 employees monitoring the device. We don't have any plans to increase usage. 

This is a scalable solution. There are more than 500 users in my client's organization.