Agreed, So many (more) features, semi-centralized on several controllers, is a tradeoff. Until I don't have to care about multiple controllers, its neither centralized nor intelligent. How much more innovation we can expect from the big infrastructure vendors remains to be seen. So far, the lack of a middle-ground (group-level) flexibility of configuration, between autonomous and centralized, is where I've felt the pain. I do like AirWave in that you can create configuration containers/domains - this is the right approach (I am not a fan of the single flat template domain of the WCS). The more I hear of the Aerohive approach, the more it seems the right fit for virtualized radio management. My declining .02 --Bruce
________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee H Badman Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Controller Bruce: "Too bad these features can't be enabled/disabled on a per-AP basis." You just nailed the essence of one of the big trade-offs of all that is gained with the thin wireless architecture. In many ways, the WiSM is the AP, and the APs have become antennas- the feature granularility of autonomous APs is greatly reduced, and often in ways that are counter-intuitive (at least to me). One man's o-pinon:-) Lee Lee H. Badman Wireless/Network Engineer Information Technology and Services Syracuse University 315 443-3003 ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Johnson, Bruce T Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Controller That's a good point Jeff, I understood RLDP causes APs to become active "clients" in order to associate to rogues and hence can impact active connections; I didn't realize this would reset the radios, however. Either way, the impact on connections is, as all Cisco caveats are, neatly tucked in the back of the Field Notices. I had this enabled on one controller to test its effectiveness, and it explains why I see the resets exclusively on the b/g radios of APs that actually hear rogues. Too bad these features can't be enabled/disabled on a per-AP basis. Thanks, --Bruce Johnson ________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Legge, Jeffry Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Controller Do you have RLDP enabled on your controllers? See the attachment. RLDP actually resets the radio interface in order to associate to a rogue AP as a client and attempts to send a message through the rogue AP to see if it reaches the controller. This can take 30 seconds. Just a thought. -Jeff Legge Radford University From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Manoj Abeysekera Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 2:55 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Controller Mike, We run 4.2.130. I was told by Cisco Engineer to downgrade to this version as we had a nightmare with 5.x. However we still get Clients disconnected at random intervals(Radio seems to reset somehow forcing clients to roam to nearby LAP's). Cisco has no clue and i wonder why not many people have called them yet. WLC's 4404 AP's 1230 Open Network Let me know if you find a cure.. Good Luck! Manoj American U. Mike King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <[email protected]> 10/08/2008 02:44 PM Please respond to The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <[email protected]> To [email protected] cc Subject [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Wireless Controller So Cisco LWAPP people, Currently we're on 4.1.185.0 <http://4.1.185.0/> . It's a 4402 controller, with 1131AG access points. Anyone made the leap to one of the 4.2, 5.0 , or 5.1 trains without seriously regretting it? We've had some random disconnects with clients. It's pretty common, happening to most all users. We're running WPA-PSK, so it's not an 802.1x issue. Before we involve TAC, we figured we should upgrade to a new code train. Mike ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. <http://www.educause.edu/groups/> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
