If you were talking to someone whose organization is considering Cisco ISE (Identity Services Engine), what would you say?
How would you rate it and why? Any other tips or advice?
My advice to someone considering this solution would be to seek the most comprehensive solution for residence halls. I would rate this solution as eight out of ten. I would like the flow of authentication and authorization metrics to be easier to see.
The deployment strategy was faster than the pilot. We had to see how it works and then we had to, in a transparent manner, see how it works. Deployment took about six months. But the rollout is on-going because we keep opening branches all the time, so we just keep adding them into the solution. For deployment, we used the front liner support but for documentation, we had professional staff. For deployment and maintenance, we have a small team of maybe about five to ten. I would give the solution 5.5 out of 10.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
On a scale from one to ten, I would rate Cisco ISE an eight because the server is so complex. Cisco needs to re-program or re-issue it and release a new version with more adequate sizing for small businesses.
It's a good product but it requires technical support and knowledge otherwise it will be difficult to manage and run it. It requires somebody to be configuring issues. You need protection as you advance in the usage but it's a good product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. In order to make it a ten, it should be more user-friendly. You need somebody who is knowledgeable about it to use it. It's not easy to use. We have to rely heavily on technical support.
The advice that I would give someone considering this solution is to understand the licensing. From a design perspective, we refer to the ordering guide quite frequently. The most important thing is to have a technical planning session with the customer. A lot of the time the customer doesn't really know what they want and if you don't have that upfront planning and discussion with the customer, the deployment can take much longer. I would rate it a ten out of ten.
We plan to increase usage by around 20 to 30%. It gives people the peace of mind that they have the possibility to grant access to the people that visit their premises and ensures that they are working in a safe environment that is pure and clear when they use the posture services of the solution. I would rate it a nine out of ten.
The solution is sufficient and seems to require little to no maintenance from the client side. Maintenance is always in proportion to the client's needs and product deployment. For instance when we are managing two Cisco ISE boxes with two onsite engineers. As capacity grows obviously we need more engineers; it's not a 1-to-1 relationship but we always take a minimum of two certified engineers qualified to manage Cisco ISE. I would give this solution a rating of 7 out of 10.
I would rate this solution a 7.5 out of ten. To make it a ten they should have more people on tech support. They need to invest more in the product. It's a good product. They should just work on tech support. More support for the customer. It's not that easy to get somebody to understand this product. I have had some issues with tech before for the solution. One of them brought the solution down due to some of his activity. They need to hugely invest in their tech support.
You should have a fair understanding of the kubernetes that have been used in their infrastructure. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would advise someone considering this solution not to enable it with MAC. They are going to be in a very bad state after enabling this with MAC because if you do it is going to isolate so many devices which do not comply with the policy.
I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.
It's a great product but you should be careful to plan before deploying. Do thorough planning as not to do the same error that we did. We didn't do enough planning before deploying so it took us a long time to have a thorough plan. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
This solution can be used to protect one's application. The server has many features to secure and diagnose.