<?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 Load balancing problem in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854930#M218659</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is load balance on the controllers as Scott pointed out... Here is the reaosn why they dont work, ie "Reason Code 17".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H2&gt;&lt;A name="backinfo"&gt;Aggressive Load-Balancing&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggressive load-balancing on the WLC allows the LAPs to load-balance wireless clients across APs in an LWAPP system.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This feature can be used in order to load-balance clients across LAPs on a single controller.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggressive load-balancing works at the association phase. If enabled&amp;nbsp; and the conditions to load-balance are met, when a wireless client&amp;nbsp; attempts to associate to a LAP, association response frames are sent to&amp;nbsp; the client with an 802.11 response packet that includes status code 17.&amp;nbsp; This code indicates that the AP is too busy to accept any more&amp;nbsp; associations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;It is the responsibility of the client to honor,&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt; process or discard&amp;nbsp; that association response frame with reason code 17. Some clients ignore&amp;nbsp; it, even though it is part of the 802.11 specification. The standard&amp;nbsp; dictates that the client driver must look for another AP to connect to&amp;nbsp; since it receives a "busy" message from the first AP it tries. Many&amp;nbsp; clients do not do this and send the association request again. The&amp;nbsp; client in question is allowed on to the wireless network upon subsequent&amp;nbsp; attempts to associate.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In WLC versions 6.0.182.0 and earlier, the controller only sends one&amp;nbsp; association response frame with reason code 17 to the client. If the&amp;nbsp; client decides to discard the reason code 17, the client can try the&amp;nbsp; same AP again and this time the AP allows the client to complete the&amp;nbsp; association.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the client honors the association response status code 17, the&amp;nbsp; client then attempts to associate to a different AP. For example, if&amp;nbsp; load-balancing is enabled and the load-balancing window is configured as&amp;nbsp; five clients, when a sixth client tries to associate to the AP, the&amp;nbsp; client receives an 802.11 Association Response frame with status code&amp;nbsp; 17, which indicates that the AP is busy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:08:30 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>George Stefanick</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2012-01-25T19:08:30Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854926#M218655</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi, we have 2 4402 controllers and WCS v.7.0.172. 1142 and 3502 AP's&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Problem : 30-50 clients connects to one AP. Other AP's in the same room/area have only 3-6 clients connected. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;How can I prevent this and probably get better performance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have disabled datarates from 0-11 Mbs.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Johann Folkestad&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 04:26:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854926#M218655</guid>
      <dc:creator>johannf</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T04:26:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854927#M218656</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is a feature in the 7.x version that you can enable client load balancing per wlan ssid.&amp;nbsp; However, this feature has caused me issues in the past and is not really worth enabling unless you do a lot of testing.&amp;nbsp; If the users are not having issues, then I wouldn't worry about it, as the client is the one that chooses what ap it wants to join.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:11:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854927#M218656</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-24T13:11:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854928#M218657</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;It's a tricky one as the clients make the decision about who they are going to try to associate with.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;You might try turning the power down on your APs to reduce cell sizes and encourage clients to use an AP that they can hear locally.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nigel. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:02:14 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854928#M218657</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nigel Bowden</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T14:02:14Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854929#M218658</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt; Good idea. I'll try this.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;JF&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:59:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854929#M218658</guid>
      <dc:creator>johannf</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T18:59:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854930#M218659</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is load balance on the controllers as Scott pointed out... Here is the reaosn why they dont work, ie "Reason Code 17".&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;H2&gt;&lt;A name="backinfo"&gt;Aggressive Load-Balancing&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/H2&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggressive load-balancing on the WLC allows the LAPs to load-balance wireless clients across APs in an LWAPP system.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;This feature can be used in order to load-balance clients across LAPs on a single controller.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Aggressive load-balancing works at the association phase. If enabled&amp;nbsp; and the conditions to load-balance are met, when a wireless client&amp;nbsp; attempts to associate to a LAP, association response frames are sent to&amp;nbsp; the client with an 802.11 response packet that includes status code 17.&amp;nbsp; This code indicates that the AP is too busy to accept any more&amp;nbsp; associations.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;It is the responsibility of the client to honor,&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt; process or discard&amp;nbsp; that association response frame with reason code 17. Some clients ignore&amp;nbsp; it, even though it is part of the 802.11 specification. The standard&amp;nbsp; dictates that the client driver must look for another AP to connect to&amp;nbsp; since it receives a "busy" message from the first AP it tries. Many&amp;nbsp; clients do not do this and send the association request again. The&amp;nbsp; client in question is allowed on to the wireless network upon subsequent&amp;nbsp; attempts to associate.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In WLC versions 6.0.182.0 and earlier, the controller only sends one&amp;nbsp; association response frame with reason code 17 to the client. If the&amp;nbsp; client decides to discard the reason code 17, the client can try the&amp;nbsp; same AP again and this time the AP allows the client to complete the&amp;nbsp; association.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;If the client honors the association response status code 17, the&amp;nbsp; client then attempts to associate to a different AP. For example, if&amp;nbsp; load-balancing is enabled and the load-balancing window is configured as&amp;nbsp; five clients, when a sixth client tries to associate to the AP, the&amp;nbsp; client receives an 802.11 Association Response frame with status code&amp;nbsp; 17, which indicates that the AP is busy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:08:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854930#M218659</guid>
      <dc:creator>George Stefanick</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T19:08:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854931#M218660</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt; Hmm, I found this settings in "Configure AP" - Performance Profile. Any idea if I can use this. Noting in the help file.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG src="http://supportforums.cisco.com/sites/default/files/legacy/7/5/6/73657-perf_wcs.JPG" class="jive-image" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 19:14:01 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854931#M218660</guid>
      <dc:creator>johannf</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T19:14:01Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Load balancing problem</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854932#M218661</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;They are just threshold settings that alter the levels at which profile thresholds are breached and alarms will be generated. They do not control client numbers on an AP.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Nigel.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:52:44 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/load-balancing-problem/m-p/1854932#M218661</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nigel Bowden</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-01-25T22:52:44Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

