<?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: N+1 HA setup mobility domain in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4446038#M232000</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;If you want it to work seamlessly then yes you need mobility between them.&amp;nbsp; Why wouldn't you do that?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2021 11:59:21 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Rich R</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2021-08-08T11:59:21Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>N+1 HA setup mobility domain</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445409#M231953</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Do controllers in an N+1 HA setup (different geographic location) need to be in the same mobility domain for AP failover to work?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;It seems like some documentation mentions this and some does not. Can anyone confirm if it is necessary?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks in advance!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 08:44:09 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445409#M231953</guid>
      <dc:creator>Michiel Vercoutter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-08-06T08:44:09Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: N+1 HA setup mobility domain</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445444#M231957</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Not sure what is the Models you referring here, But high level&amp;nbsp; technically it supports :&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;The N+1 HA architecture provides redundancy for controllers across geographically separate data centers with low cost of deployment.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/technology/hi_avail/N1_High_Availability_Deployment_Guide/N1_HA_Overview.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/technology/hi_avail/N1_High_Availability_Deployment_Guide/N1_HA_Overview.html&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 10:10:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445444#M231957</guid>
      <dc:creator>balaji.bandi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-08-06T10:10:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: N+1 HA setup mobility domain</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445447#M231958</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;My apologies, models are vWLC version 8.10.151.0&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the document you provided, there is no mention of mobility groups.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, in the following document there is:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-8/config-guide/b_cg88/high_availability.html#vwlc-and-nplus1-ha" target="_blank" rel="noopener"&gt;https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-8/config-guide/b_cg88/high_availability.html#vwlc-and-nplus1-ha&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;"The Cisco vWLC HA has the following prerequisites:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;UL&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P class="p"&gt;The primary, secondary, and tertiary vWLCs should be part of the same mobility group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P class="p"&gt;The vWLC in the mobility group should have a uniform set of hash keys to seamlessly move an AP from one vWLC to another. For example, if we have vWLCs, N, in a mobility group, or vWLC, M, and normal WLCs (where M is greater than N), then all vWLCs should have the hashes of other vWLCs in the same group.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;LI&gt;&lt;P class="p"&gt;For effective connectivity of the APs on all the vWLCs in a mobility group (including vWLC mobility members in N+1 format), the mobility hash table should contain all the vWLC hash keys."&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 10:26:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4445447#M231958</guid>
      <dc:creator>Michiel Vercoutter</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-08-06T10:26:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: N+1 HA setup mobility domain</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4446038#M232000</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;If you want it to work seamlessly then yes you need mobility between them.&amp;nbsp; Why wouldn't you do that?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2021 11:59:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/n-1-ha-setup-mobility-domain/m-p/4446038#M232000</guid>
      <dc:creator>Rich R</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-08-08T11:59:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

