<?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: Sizing guest anchor controller in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324505#M80019</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could always port-channel a 4402 and use LAG on your anchor controller for 2gb.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I use a 4402-12 for our anchor's as the BW is adequate, and AP license count is not a factor for anchors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>brian.kachel</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2009-11-17T00:06:19Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Sizing guest anchor controller</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324504#M80018</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;40 locations, around 20-30 APs per location, 1 gig back from each site to the main site, minimizing cost. Trying to size the guest anchor controller. Redundancy is not required. As I understand correctly 4402/4404/5508 controller supports up to around 70 EOP tunnels. My limitation is bandwidth. Is it safe to say that if Internet bandwidth is &amp;lt;100Mbps, then 4402 will suffice? Only if Internet bandwidth was above &amp;gt;1Gbps when I'd need to go to 4404 (bandwidth is used twice, so 1Gbps guest traffic would result at approximately 2Gbps throughput) &lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2021 01:16:18 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324504#M80018</guid>
      <dc:creator>Roman Rodichev</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-04T01:16:18Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing guest anchor controller</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324505#M80019</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;You could always port-channel a 4402 and use LAG on your anchor controller for 2gb.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I use a 4402-12 for our anchor's as the BW is adequate, and AP license count is not a factor for anchors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:06:19 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324505#M80019</guid>
      <dc:creator>brian.kachel</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-17T00:06:19Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Sizing guest anchor controller</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324506#M80020</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yes, that's what I was thinking, 4402 is 2gb, and since traffic is anchored the actual throughput is 1gb. What's your Internet connection speed? Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:22:42 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/sizing-guest-anchor-controller/m-p/1324506#M80020</guid>
      <dc:creator>Roman Rodichev</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2009-11-17T00:22:42Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

