Correct sir, but them bugs...
Kitri -- University of Oregon On 7/18/14, 10:20 AM, Danny Eaton wrote: > 7.5 actually got us AP and client SSO failover. 7.6 got us the 3702s. > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Mega™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Kitri Waterman > Date:18/07/2014 12:05 (GMT-06:00) > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with > Cisco WLCs > > Matt, > > Perhaps obvious reminder: 7.6 gives you AP and client SSO. 7.4 only > gives you AP failover. Client SSO is a thing of beauty: We see perhaps > 1-2 lost client pings during the fail over. Not that there should ever > be failovers, right? > > I would definitely recommend the 7.6.120.6 engineering version which > fixes some major crash issues that Curtis and others have alluded to. > > Are you going to do 1:1 to different locations for site redundancy? > Several of us do HA / 1:1 to different chassis (non-VSS). > > Kitri > -- > University of Oregon > > On 7/18/14, 7:58 AM, Hector J Rios wrote: >> >> Matt, >> >> >> >> We have been running N+1 for quite a while and never had any major >> issues. In our configuration we had three wireless core locations >> were only two of those had enough HAs to back up an entire core site. >> But this summer we are moving to AP and Client SSO for true high >> availability. N+1 was fine in the past when wireless was not >> considered mission critical, but today more and more students and >> professors are relying on wireless and we must have a solution that >> will have the least impact. SSO promises that. We are running 7.6 >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Hector Rios >> >> Louisiana State University >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv >> [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ashfield, >> Matt (NBCC) >> *Sent:* Thursday, July 17, 2014 7:21 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [WIRELESS-LAN] High Availability for 2+1 scenario with >> Cisco WLCs >> >> >> >> Hello >> >> >> >> Up until now, we have had a very distributed approach to our >> controllers, with no redundancy. We are centralizing our controllers >> with the idea of having at least 2 5508 WLCs and one High >> Availability 5508. When we were working with a consultant today, he >> indicated that his experience in using an HA controller to act as HA >> for more than one 5508 did not yield good results. He recommended >> using a 1:1 relationship for controller and HA controller. He did >> state however this was with 7.4.x code and he hadn’t tried it with >> newer levels of code. >> >> >> I thought I’d check here if anyone has had similar experiences and/or >> comments about their experience in the N+1 scenario, and if they say >> improvements or lack of issues with 7.6 code. >> >> >> >> Any help/advice is appreciated. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> ********** 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/. >> > > !DSPAM:911,53c95418157991530112441! ********** 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/.
