topic Re: Wireless APs of different models in Wireless

Wireless APs of different models can be used.

Translator — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 07:40:32 GMT

Model Name: DN2-HW-APL/ C9800-40

Software Version: 2.3.5.4-70852-HF3

■Inquiry Contents

In an SDA network environment, if you mix C9105 and C9115 access points,

Are there any problems with wireless operation or Assurance?

For C9120, the Deployment Guide includes:

=====

The Catalyst 9120 is a highly advanced access point that supports Wi-Fi 6 functionality and has unique features such as dual 5 GHz and advanced RF detection using Cisco custom RF ASIC devices.

Therefore, it is not recommended to mix access points of different models. This situation, also known as salt and pepper, can result in poor DNA network performance, degradation of various advanced features such as intelligent capture, and poor performance optimization.

Therefore, if you have mixed types of APs, it is recommended that you group the same type of APs together. For example, if you placed AP-3800 on one floor, you might place the Cisco Catalyst 9120 on another floor to avoid mixing.

=====

I would like to check if it is a combination of C9105 and C9115.

Re: Wireless APs of different models can be used.

balaji.bandi — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:17:04 GMT

You can mix the AP, as Long as WLC can support.

You can also have different profiles based on the AP Model

reference best practice :

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/9800/technical-reference/c9800-best-practices.html

Re: Wireless APs of different models

Translator — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:44:30 GMT

Thank you for your reply. Let me check the following three points.
·Is it OK to mix CW9162 and CW9166?
·Are you sure that you can use Wi-Fi with Assurance Label and SD-Access without any problems?

· Is the Catalyst 9120 only applicable to the Do not recommend mixing different models of access points?

Re: Wireless APs of different models

Translator — Fri, 14 Mar 2025 11:27:35 GMT

I think this is a matter of nuance interpretation.

· If you say "Do you support or not?", I think it will support.

However, if you say "Do you recommend it or not?" or "Is it good or bad in terms of design?"
In essence, the documentation tells us that it is better to avoid mixing different models (in any combination).

Because we can't have a high-end model that's consistent across all of our locations and on the same floor for budgetary reasons.
I think there is a method that mixes high-end models only in high-density environments.
If "within the same site (roaming domain)" and "those with different function grades" are mixed, the functions will differ in no small degree from the original around the RF.
I think it's intended to convey the difficulty of troubleshooting when problems arise due to that.

I think the source document is as follows, but as described,
Even if they are mixed, I think it is preferable that the same base and the same floor be unified in the same model.
Also, if you are in the position of proposing to End User or the upper management of the company, I think it is better to agree on wireless LAN because it is especially easy to cause radio wave trouble.

Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Point Deployment Guide - Cisco
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/catalyst-9100ax-access-points/guide-c07-742311.html
> For this reason, if you have a mixture of AP types, it is recommended that you group like access points together (for example, AP-3800s on, say, one floor and Cisco Catalyst 9120s on another) and refrain from mixing them.

Cisco Catalyst 9120 Access Point Deployment Guide - Cisco
https://www.cisco.com/c/ja_jp/products/collateral/wireless/catalyst-9100ax-access-points/guide-c07-742311.html
> Therefore, if you have mixed AP types, it is recommended that you group the same type of access points together. For example, if you have placed AP-3800 on one floor, you should place Cisco Catalyst 9120 on another floor so that it does not mix.

Re: Wireless APs of different models

Translator — Mon, 17 Mar 2025 06:45:17 GMT

Thank you for your reply.

Please check again below.

·Are there any problems with wireless operation and assurance in an SDA environment?
　→ Do you have a response?

·If so, what are the problems?

· The document suggests that it is better to avoid mixing models that are essentially different (in any combination)
The →9120/9130 "is a very advanced access point that supports Wi-Fi 6 functionality and has unique features such as dual 5 GHz and advanced RF detection using Cisco custom RF ASIC devices."
　　I understand that it is not recommended, but please tell us why it is better to avoid it in other models.
　　
· The functionality differs a little from the original in the RF circumference, which makes it difficult to troubleshoot problems caused by this
　→ What specific problems may arise due to functions and RF?

Re: Wireless APs of different models

Translator — Tue, 18 Mar 2025 14:04:15 GMT

Community is a volunteer-based, not necessarily a Cisco employee.
We will preface that it is not possible to guarantee the answer as in the case of Yes / No.

For examples of possible negative effects when mixing models, see
For example, when models with and without support for the 6 GHz band are mixed,
Although 6 GHz Client Steering is used to guide the sample to the 6 GHz bend,
Because there were non-compatible APs in the 6 GHz band, coverage holes were created.

If you have a mix of Intelligent Capture (iCAP) models with and without data packet capture,
If the roaming destination is an incompatible AP, the capture establishment will be reduced and the troubleshooting efficiency will be reduced. ※ See reference
I think there may be a case where I said that.
It is a desk theory, and I did not actually try it.

[Data Packet Capture Reference]
Cisco DNA Assurance Release 2.3.5 User's Guide - Manage Intelligent Capture [Cisco Catalyst Center] - Cisco
https://www.cisco.com/c/ja_jp/td/docs/cloud-systems-management/network-automation-and-management/dna-center-assurance/2-3-5/b_cisco_dna_assurance_2_3_5_ug/b_cisco_dna_assurance_2_3_3_ug_chapter_01110.html
> Data packet capture is only supported on Cisco Aironet 4800 APs and Cisco Catalyst 9130, 9136, and 9166 APs. If data packet capture is enabled and the client roams to an AP that does not support packet capture, packet capture stops until the client reconnects to an AP that supports packet capture.

It was described as an assumed example.
This is also a perspective that falls within the category of design know-how that SIer possesses.
I don't think it's easy to have an exhaustive scenario (all considerations close to 100%).