Thanks Matt. Stay tuned we have another video planned for just this.

@@MicrosoftCAE awesome, that would be amazing, looking forward to it 😎

Would be really great with some practical examples of the scaling issues. Are about to decide on MG structure and tend to go for MGs on prod and dev.

I believe the difference is the additional management group level that is crossed out in section discussed by Matt. The dev, test, and prod subscriptions can be under Corp but they can't be under dev, test, and prod management groups under the Corp management group. This discussion is about management groups, not subscriptions. Kevin's did not have the dev, test, and prod management groups.

Hey, thanks! The TLDR on Corp & Online are as follows: Corp == Corporate connected applications, that require hybrid connectivity back to on-premises or other VNet spokes via traditional Layer 3 Routing (think VNet Peering to a Hub etc.) Online == Workloads that don't need traditional Layer 3 routing to on-premise or other VNet spokes. And if they do require connectivity to them they would either interact via each applications API exposure "publicly" (over the MSFT backbone if all in Azure) or use service like Private Link to connect between each other without the need for VNet Peering. We are actually creating a document in CAF for just this topic in terms of how Corp & Online Networking should be done in more detail and some common scenarios. Stay tuned.

Thanks @bangash830. If it requires private corp connectivity it would be corp. We recently documented this a bit more here: learn.microsoft.com/azure/cloud-adoption-framework/ready/landing-zone/design-area/network-topology-and-connectivity#design-area-overview Corp only applies policies to prevent public IPs from being attached to NICs, which means app GWs etc all can still exist in corp, if requried

@@MicrosoftCAE Thank you for your reply, and yes the recent document regarding network topology and connectivity is much clear.

Azure Policy can be applied at the Management Group, Subscription, Resource Group or individual resource level. If you apply a policy at a higher level, it gets inherited down. If there is a more restrictive policy it will always win, regardless of the level it has been applied. Meaning, it does not matter if the policy is applied on management group or individual resource level, the deny will win for the resources the policy is assigned to. If policies are not conflicting, they will be complementary. In your example if I felt I was going to apply a more restrictive policy, I would consider applying it at a lower level for testing. Also, we should strive to have production and non-production versions of our applications, so ideally, we would be able to apply the more restrictive policy to the non-production side first, test and validate, then roll into production once we felt comfortable. As mentioned in the video you can deploy Policy in Audit mode, so following the above feedback with this, you should be able to accomplish what you are asking: learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/concepts/effects

@@tharagz08 audit mode with some validation process makes most sense. Your example works but I was specific about testing policy applied at the root, or more specifically corporation subroot which are intended to be inherited by all, like a change nist or something.

@@evolagenda I think audit mode would make the most sense in that scenario then.