<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Thresholds for using a load balancer in front of a PSN in Network Access Control</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/thresholds-for-using-a-load-balancer-in-front-of-a-psn/m-p/3569362#M509223</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You would need to reach out to wireless team to get the max sessions per WLC platform.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max RADIUS sessions per ISE PSN is documented here: &lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68347"&gt;ISE Performance &amp;amp;amp; Scale&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Of course, max is not what you design against and should take into consideration bursts, HA/redundancy requirements, and unexpected activity from "misbehaving" clients or NADs.&amp;nbsp; Auth method is another consideration since web auth scale is lower than MAB only, or 802.1X.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I mention a number of items to consider to scale wireless and guest in Cisco Live session BRKSEC-3699 (reference version) available on ciscolive.com. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My general recommendation on use of load balancer to distribute load starts after 2 or 3 PSNs.&amp;nbsp; If a single WLC can fully accommodate the load including bursts and unexpected noise, then a basic A/S or mutual A/A redundancy scheme may suffice, but if require more PSNs to support load, then manual distribution efforts become challenging and more prone to error.&amp;nbsp; Plus there is the opex cost of having to reconfigure NADs when add/remove PSNs or change their addressing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Craig&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 09:32:31 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2018-06-08T09:32:31Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Thresholds for using a load balancer in front of a PSN</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/thresholds-for-using-a-load-balancer-in-front-of-a-psn/m-p/3569361#M509222</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have a large higher-ed customer who was burned a few years back on WiSM2s running out of RADIUS sessions IDs during class change.&amp;nbsp; They eventually spread their wireless clients out across 22 WiSM2s before they finally felt comfortable enough with the load to move forward.&amp;nbsp; Fast-forward a few years and they’re consolidating down to 5-7 8540 WLCs and are concerned about the same issue occurring, only worse due to number of devices growing over the years.&amp;nbsp; Do we have any kind of guidelines on maximum number of clients / RADIUS sessions to expect on a WLC -&amp;gt; ISE PSN before we should introduce a stateful load balancer to begin distributing?&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:03:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/thresholds-for-using-a-load-balancer-in-front-of-a-psn/m-p/3569361#M509222</guid>
      <dc:creator>blandrum</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-07T19:03:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Thresholds for using a load balancer in front of a PSN</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/thresholds-for-using-a-load-balancer-in-front-of-a-psn/m-p/3569362#M509223</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You would need to reach out to wireless team to get the max sessions per WLC platform.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Max RADIUS sessions per ISE PSN is documented here: &lt;A href="https://community.cisco.com/docs/DOC-68347"&gt;ISE Performance &amp;amp;amp; Scale&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Of course, max is not what you design against and should take into consideration bursts, HA/redundancy requirements, and unexpected activity from "misbehaving" clients or NADs.&amp;nbsp; Auth method is another consideration since web auth scale is lower than MAB only, or 802.1X.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I mention a number of items to consider to scale wireless and guest in Cisco Live session BRKSEC-3699 (reference version) available on ciscolive.com. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;My general recommendation on use of load balancer to distribute load starts after 2 or 3 PSNs.&amp;nbsp; If a single WLC can fully accommodate the load including bursts and unexpected noise, then a basic A/S or mutual A/A redundancy scheme may suffice, but if require more PSNs to support load, then manual distribution efforts become challenging and more prone to error.&amp;nbsp; Plus there is the opex cost of having to reconfigure NADs when add/remove PSNs or change their addressing.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Craig&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2018 09:32:31 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/network-access-control/thresholds-for-using-a-load-balancer-in-front-of-a-psn/m-p/3569362#M509223</guid>
      <dc:creator>Craig Hyps</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2018-06-08T09:32:31Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

