Embedded Controller vs Standalone Controller in small networks

[brettp]

Hello, I'm looking to refresh our wireless network. The network is relatively flat -- 15 APs in one building with two networks (one internal with WPA2 Enterprise auth, the other guest with webauth.) We are currently still using two WLC2504s (We do not use DNAC.) I am trying to determine whether or not to get a new separate hardware controller with lightweight APs or go the AP with embedded controller route. I am having trouble locating anything on the Cisco site (or online even) that outlines the pros and cons for each type of topology or when one option would be more appropriate than the other. I apologize for this vague question, but does anyone have any insight or know of any articles that might be helpful? And yes, I can easily speak with a vendor's tech for their recommendations but I wanted to do some preliminary research. Thanks!

[marce1000 · Accepted solution]

 - It kind of depends on how your wireless environment will evolve on the long run (see resource limitations in the table below)
    You can also consider the virtual 9800 controller to start with, which can already go beyond those figures

           Ref : https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/wireless/catalyst-9800-series-wireless-controllers/nb-o6-embded-wrls-cont-ds-cte-en.html
  >...

Table 1.        Highlights

Metric	Value
Maximum number of access points	Up to 100
Maximum number of clients	Up to 2000
Maximum number of WLANs = 16

[Rich R]

Just a correction to those numbers: as of 17.12 https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/ewc/17-12/rel-notes/ewc-rn-17-12-x.html#id_129367 it's a maximum of 50 APs and 1000 clients on all AP models.  Those numbers were originally only on the higher spec APs anyway but evidently Cisco has decided even those can't handle the load so this is what you should assume:

Table 5. Scale Supported in Cisco EWC Network

Primary AP Model	Maximum APs Supported	Maximum Clients Supported
Cisco Catalyst 9105 AWI	50	1000
Cisco Catalyst 9115 Series	50	1000
Cisco Catalyst 9117 Series	50	1000
Cisco Catalyst 9120 Series	50	1000
Cisco Catalyst 9124AXE/I/D	50	1000
Cisco Catalyst 9130	50	1000

Note	If 25 to 50 APs have joined the EWC network, the maximum clients on the EWC internal AP is limited to 20.

The others have really highlighted all the options for you. 

@Claes Karlsson said "the downside is that you get clients straight in your DC (central switching, not flexconnect)" but in fact that's not true.  You can still use flexconnect local switching even when using a controller (it's the only option with EWC).  In fact it's generally recommended to do that anyway with 9800-CL because the virtual controller still can't scale as well as hardware WLCs for centrally switched traffic.

Meraki is the way to go for keeping it simple but you have less flexibility in configuration and features, but it probably does everything you need.

[Claes Karlsson]

Hi @brettp,

You mentioned you don't have DNAC, and since you are mentioning administration and monitoring, maybe Cisco Meraki could be an option? Otherwise I agree with @marce1000, it depends on your 2-3 years plan ahead. Virtual 9800 is a really good option, from my design opinion the downside is that you get clients straight in your DC (central switching, not flexconnect). 

[Leo Laohoo]

Depends on how simple the WiFi network is. 

If it mostly PSK, open authentication then AP with Mobility Express is fine.  Just remember that Mobility Express is a free software.  And when dealing with Cisco, "you get what you paid for" -- If y'know what I mean.  

[brettp]

Thank you for the information! So it seems you are saying it'd be better to go with a controller over the APs with an embedded controller? I would assume going with a hardware (or virtual) controller would be more of an enterprise solution for considering growth? We don't have to worry about flexconnect or anything as this is just for one building without any colo, hubs, etc. to consider. 15 APs is fine. No more than a few hundred clients. Cisco max figures would be extreme overkill in our environment... but I need something reliable. The WLC2504 has been fine... but it's definitely time for a refresh.

[marce1000]

                   >...it seems you are saying it'd be better to go with a controller over the APs with an embedded controller?
  - As stated by a few replies it all depends on your long term plans and expected growth of the wireless network (if any). WLC2504 and other aireos based platforms should be abandoned , 

 M.