FYI, you might look at 8540 if you are ordering net-new controllers. 8540 only runs 8.1+ so be aware.
Thanks Jake Snyder Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 9, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Watters, John <john.watt...@ua.edu> wrote: > > If you have HA pairs of Cisco 8510s why would you not rely on the failover > unit to be the backup? Were you going to buy two HA pairs for each campus? > > We have been using Cisco 8510 HA pairs for a few months now with goo success. > Our failover unit is at our on campus backup data center (we also have DR > type of stuff at a facility in Atlanta). All of our buildings have dual feeds > to both our main DC as well as the backup DC. When an 8510 fails over to the > HA unit, the clients are rarely affected at all since the HA unit keeps full > state info. All along the units seem to fail over for some reason with the > roles of the two units reversed. The clients do not know the difference, nor > do the APs. We have to look closely to tell which is active since they share > a common IP address for AP (and therefore, also client) connectivity. > > We do not list a secondary or tertiary controller for any of our APs. > > As for mobility groups, since our campus is divided into three MPLS areas > each with a single 8510 (and it's HA unit), we have different mobility group > in each area. These are relatively separated by outdoor space, though users > can be outside in a place that is covered by leakage from buildings in two > areas (and hence two mobility domains). We have not had any complaints > though. We do physically house all of our 8510 primary WLCs in the main DC > and all of the HA units in the backup DC. Having as lot of fiber makes this > quite doable. > > I'm sure that others who have been running these longer that we have will > have some opinions as well. > > By the way, even though each 8510 has a listed capacity of 6,000 APs, we are > trying to limit ours to 3,000 for now. Two of my MPLS areas are comfortably > below 3,000 but one is close. We will be ordering another 8510 HA pair for > this area. They will both be placed in the same mobility group. > > If you want more info, please feel free to call. > > John Watters > Network Engineer, Office of Information technology > > The University of Alabama > A115 Gordon Palmer Hall > Box 870346 > Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 > Phone 205-348-3992 > john.watt...@ua.edu > <image001.gif> > > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Wandell > Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 12:12 PM > To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU > Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Wireless Mobility > > We are in the process of setting up new wireless controllers at Binghamton > University. We will be setting up 2 sets of 8540 ha paired controllers on our > main campus and 1 set of 5520 ha paired controllers on a satellite campus. > This will be the first time we have housed controllers at the satellite > campus. Currently we have 3 sets of Wism2 controllers on campus and let > access points associate to any of our controllers. All current controllers > are in the same mobility group. What we would like to do to is break up ap's > by building, with each ap in a building having a defined primary and > secondary controller. My question is would we still need the mobility group > for our controllers? > > Any problems concerns you see by doing this? > > Thanks in advance for any input > > Chris > ********** 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/.
