With reference to point 1, If i configure same policy on Server Side, do i need configure VIP address as well?
Didn't get what exactly you're asking about. As you already have class map L4_VIP_AE_CMAP where VIP address is configured and you will use the same class map in this new service policy. So, there is no real reason to configure a new class map, but if you want - you can do it.
About conflict - it depends what you're exactly want. Again based on AE context, you have these NAT policies :
So, I'd propose to put a new class map with VIP above these two and then you will have such behaviour :
If traffic matches class map in the first policy map (say L4_LB_VIP_PMAP_NEW) , it will be processed accordigly to instruction in this policy map and other will be ignored. Which is logical from my point of view. And if e.g. traffic is coming from 10.1.3.205 to any other IP but VIP , it will be processed by AE-SERVER-PMAP policy map.
This document will provide screenshots to outline the steps to setup
TACACS+ configuration to ACI and also the configuration required on
Cisco ACS server. Please find the official Cisco guide for configuring
TACACS+ Authentication to ACI:
Is it supported or NOT supported? It's a frequently asked question.
Before APIC, release 2.3(1f), transit routing was not supported within a
single L3Out profile. In APIC, release 2.3(1f) and later, you can
configure transit routing with a single L3Out pr...
Cisco Documents are usually accurate, but when it came to the document
on Cisco APIC Signature-Based Transactions it was slightly off the mark.
This document is for those novices to API like me who cant seem to
figure out how to go about performing signat...