I have done such separators for some customers. I always disable the service and also create a filter that can never be true like username EQUALS abc123 AND username NOT_EQUALS abc123.
For the visual apperence it can be good for at least some persons to have the separators like this. Maybe depending on how much you have been working with ClearPass
------------------------------
Best Regards
Jonas Hammarbäck
MVP Guru 2024, ACEX, ACDX #1600, ACCX #1335, ACX-Network Security, Aruba SME, ACMP, ACSA
Aranya AB
If you find my answer useful, consider giving kudos and/or mark as solution
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 30, 2024 02:50 PM
From: ahollifield
Subject: ClearPass service Headers
I've seen this done before. I really don't like it and I don't personally see the point. It's not something I do for my customers.
Original Message:
Sent: Apr 30, 2024 12:34 PM
From: vvajpeyi
Subject: ClearPass service Headers
Hello, our org hired a contractor to build our ClearPass services.
The person is using inactive TACACS+ service as a header/place holder title for the services below it. I am working rebuilding a working tacacs+ service. I got an error message that a tacacs+ service already exists. I think the header idea is a good but wrongly implemented. Does anyone use an inactive non service as a header to organize their service? If so what would be a recommendation to replace with? I am thinking I should use "web based health check" it is one of the few service type my org is not using and has no clear use for in the near future. Thanks you. Best
Name Type Status
--------Header------- TACACs+ enforcement Disabled
Real running service Real running service Real running service