<?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: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823865#M108178</link>
    <description>This was my fear as well. I appreciate your insight, currently trying to get more guys out there to complete this as quickly as possible!</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:07:46 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Ninjabean</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-03-21T17:07:46Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823704#M108174</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;We are replacing old standalone APs with controller based in a big warehouse, that demands no downtime.&amp;nbsp; To do this, we are just replacing one at a time, but they want them to have the same SSIDs - so of course these APs are overlapping, causing forklifts and such to lose connection presumably because they are "confused" about which AP to join.&amp;nbsp; I am assuming that the standalone and controller based APs do not "see" each other and manipulate their signal strength, which is causing the issue.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;Other than manually tweaking the power of each AP until we find the sweet spot, is there anything else that can be done? By doing this, I worry that there will be manufactured dead zones because we cannot be as precise as the APs algorithms to determine coverage are.&amp;nbsp; Plus, because a new AP is being swapped out every hour or so, the landscape keeps changing.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2021 17:06:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823704#M108174</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ninjabean</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-05T17:06:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823811#M108175</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Which model APs your going to convert?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently how they are connected ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:11:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823811#M108175</guid>
      <dc:creator>Sathiyanarayanan Ravindran</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-21T16:11:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823820#M108176</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;- Looking for trouble since the controller based AP's will 'honestly' try to make a complete coverage of the area and regulate TPC and DCA accordingly (per access point). Better to do this in a production-shutdown period and make a complete-sweep of the ap-swapping process during that instance.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;M.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 16:16:16 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823820#M108176</guid>
      <dc:creator>Mark Elsen</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-21T16:16:16Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823864#M108177</link>
      <description>The old models are 1240AG.  They are currently all stand alone, using power injectors back to a 100mb switch.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:06:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823864#M108177</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ninjabean</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-21T17:06:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823865#M108178</link>
      <description>This was my fear as well. I appreciate your insight, currently trying to get more guys out there to complete this as quickly as possible!</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:07:46 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3823865#M108178</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ninjabean</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-21T17:07:46Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Controller-Based APs and Standalone in Same Building</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3824153#M108179</link>
      <description>There will be a downtime.  &lt;BR /&gt;1.  When the wireless client re-authenticate from the old autonomous AP to the new controller-based AP. &lt;BR /&gt;2.  When traffic goes from autonomous to controller-based AP.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2019 05:52:07 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/controller-based-aps-and-standalone-in-same-building/m-p/3824153#M108179</guid>
      <dc:creator>Leo Laohoo</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-03-22T05:52:07Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

