UAG Licensing RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hi,

    I am aware that no official UAG licensing has been released...however I will assume a similar model to IAG - and ask my question:

    We are deploying 2 UAG servers (array). Behind those servers will be 1) Public Websites published via UAG and 2) External Suppliers AD Forest in the DMZ and various Sharepoint and other applications published via UAG.

    In my, limited license, opinion...I would need the following:
    - 2 x UAG Server License
    - 2 x External Connector License (1 per server)

    If, at a later stage I would like to use UAG and publish another Portal for our internal staff, with user accounts on a separate AD Internal Forest, can they also connect through the UAG EC License?

    Kind regards,
    • Edited by D Wind Monday, November 30, 2009 3:16 PM
    Monday, November 30, 2009 2:22 PM


All replies

  • Hi Amigo. I am not an expert regarding licensing questions, but as far as I know, for the internal users you will need to adcquire CALs (one for each user accesing the portal. Not concurrent users). The external connector is reserved for users outside your control, like a commercial or public website protected by IAG.

    // Raúl - I love this game
    Monday, November 30, 2009 2:40 PM
  • That's correct, Internal users ('Employees') are not covered under the EC.  Each employee must have a CAL if they wish to access services through UAG.
    Monday, November 30, 2009 5:28 PM
  • OK, so essentially what you are saying is that the EC license must be there IF I am exposing public/anonymous data via the UAG/IAG device?

    The moment I have AD forests (one for internal staff & another one for external suppliers) I will need to purchase UAG User or Device CALs?

    Monday, November 30, 2009 6:56 PM
  • Under normal circumstances (and by normal, I mean most things but MOSS), Microsoft only requires CALs/ECs for non-Employees if they are authenticated.  Anonymous users do not need licenses.

    Microsoft bases licenses on user type (Employee/Non-Employee), not authentication store.  Regardless of where their identity is stored (AD, LDAP, SQL, RADIUS, etc), ECs are only applicable to non-Employees.  CALs can be used for Employees or non-Employees.

    The CAL/EC decision for non-Employees is purely financial: If you are expecting 5 non-employees, CALs are far more cost effective.  If you are expecting 500,000 non-employees, ECs are more cost effective.

    I hope this makes sense, MSFT licensing is an artform.
    Monday, November 30, 2009 8:35 PM
  • Deejerido,

    You are correct, this license thing is something else, which is why I am posting here ;-)
    Lets take MOSS out of the equation for now - as I know they are going with the Internet Connector License already.

    OK, from what you have told me - and I will confirm this with a LAR:

    1. Anonymous users do not need a license to use IAG/UAG-published public websites
    2. Company employees (authenticated) fall under IAG/UAG CALs
    3. The decision to use either an IAG/UAG CAL or EC for non-employees (authenticated) is just down to pure $ numbers

    This is starting to sound much clearer. So are my assumptions finally on the right track?


    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 6:33 AM
  • Yep, exactly on track.
    • Marked as answer by Erez Benari Thursday, December 3, 2009 6:17 PM
    Tuesday, December 1, 2009 1:59 PM