topic Re: REP on Wireless in Wireless

REP on Wireless

gjelke — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 22:55:38 GMT

I have a client needing to have a segment of the REP ring being wireless p2p link. Perhaps even more than one.

I can find documentation of what is supported, is it safe to assume that all other variations are then not supported?

Re: REP on Wireless

pieterh — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 13:15:07 GMT

Supported Platforms

Desktop Switching Business Unit (DSBU) Metro Switches (3750ME and ME3400) Release 12.2(40)SE and later
Cisco Catalyst 4500 Series Switch Release 12.2(44)SG and later
Cisco Catalyst 6500 Series Switch Starting in Whitney2 (12.2SXI)
Cisco Catalyst 7600 Series Router Starting in Cobra (12.2SRC)

source: https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/lan-switching/ethernet/116384-technote-rep-00.html

of course as it is a L2 protocol, it might work over wireless links that transparently forward L2 packets.
but I would read info in above document as not supported on other devices than above mentioned

added: more supported devices
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/switches/catalyst-9300-series-switches/220717-understand-rep-on-catalyst-9000-switches.html

Components Used

The information in this document is based on these software and hardware versions:

Catalyst 9200
Catalyst 9300
Catalyst 9400
Catalyst 9500
Catalyst 9600
Cisco IOS XE 17.6.5 and later

Re: REP on Wireless

gjelke — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 21:25:54 GMT

Thanks, this is the documents that I had previously found. I was hoping where buried within Cisco's documentation mountain there might have been a tech note or something that suggests that it can be supported in these circumstances.

Re: REP on Wireless

Ambuj M — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 04:45:41 GMT

that would be correct, as far as I know Resilient Ethernet Protocol (REP) is not natively designed to run directly over standard Wi-Fi wireless links

Re: REP on Wireless

pieterh — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 09:58:42 GMT

redundancy proticols are there to provide redundancy en improve availability of the network
as such a wireless link is not the best solution (unless Cisco's recently introduced URWB)

but...., if you cannot use a wired link it can still be the best option in this environment
as said before it probably will work, but i doubt it is documented in any support document by Cisco

and then you want to use multiple wireless segments in the ring.....?.....
-> try to avoid that,
try to split this in multiple rings each with a single wireless segment

Re: REP on Wireless

gjelke — Mon, 08 Jun 2026 21:29:42 GMT

Thanks @pieterh , unfortunatly there will be more than one wireless segment due ot the nature of the topology of the physical environment.