<?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: Question about controllers and failover in Wireless</title>
    <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019830#M80487</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In that scenario, you can do what you have... A &amp;amp; C and the other half B &amp;amp; D.  Or you can do A &amp;amp; C &amp;amp; B then on the other half C &amp;amp; A &amp;amp; D.  You want to make sure if one of your WiSM's fail, that the other half doesn't' fail the same time.  So you should design half of your ap's to use WiSM1 and the other to use WiSM2 as the primary.  The secondary should be the opposite WiSM and the tertiary should be back on the primary WiSM, but on the other controller.  Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:23:28 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2008-06-23T20:23:28Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Question about controllers and failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019828#M80485</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This might be more of a question for Cisco but in WCS you can configure an AP to use up to 3 controllers. That is great but what if you are running dual WiSM modules, then you would have 4 controllers but you can't configure the AP's to use the fourth controller. Anyone else run into this issue and what you did to work around it? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Short of configuring half of my AP's to use controllers A &amp;amp; C and then the other half to use B &amp;amp; D, I can't figure out a better way to configure these guys. Thanks!&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Jul 2021 23:04:04 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019828#M80485</guid>
      <dc:creator>taelon_x7</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2021-07-03T23:04:04Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about controllers and failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019829#M80486</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;There is no real way to do what you are speaking of effectively. It's one of the reasons I like stand alone controllers. Bear in mind that the APs will failover to the unused controller automatically. The process for LWAPP controller registrations is this. Master, Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and least congested. In your case APs would failover to the least congested after the primary, secondary, and tertiary are full.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:27:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019829#M80486</guid>
      <dc:creator>dennischolmes</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-23T19:27:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about controllers and failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019830#M80487</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;In that scenario, you can do what you have... A &amp;amp; C and the other half B &amp;amp; D.  Or you can do A &amp;amp; C &amp;amp; B then on the other half C &amp;amp; A &amp;amp; D.  You want to make sure if one of your WiSM's fail, that the other half doesn't' fail the same time.  So you should design half of your ap's to use WiSM1 and the other to use WiSM2 as the primary.  The secondary should be the opposite WiSM and the tertiary should be back on the primary WiSM, but on the other controller.  Hope this helps.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 20:23:28 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019830#M80487</guid>
      <dc:creator>Scott Fella</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-23T20:23:28Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Question about controllers and failover</title>
      <link>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019831#M80488</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;And if you are doing voip you may wish to make  related APs - same floor, same unit - are on the same controller as the roaming/handoff time is minimized if AP1 and AP2 are on same controller otherwise there will be noticeable pauses in users are in middle of conversations while walking.  &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:37:35 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.cisco.com/t5/wireless/question-about-controllers-and-failover/m-p/1019831#M80488</guid>
      <dc:creator>Robert Rowland III</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2008-06-26T16:37:35Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

