two wism module in vss mode

[mohammad abdul jawad]

i have two switches 6509 connected by vss technology

i add two wism module ( one in each switch 6509 )

i need to know if  two wism are operate active - active in vss or active - standby ?

[Federico Ziliotto · Accepted solution]

Hi Mohammad,

From the WiSM perspective there is no active/standby concept.
All WiSM modules will always be active:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/ps9336/products_tech_note09186a0080a7c72b.shtml#wism

What changes between active/standby are the Supervisors.

Regards,

Fede

--
If  this helps you and/or answers your question please mark the question as  "answered" and/or rate it, so other users can easily find it.

[mohammad abdul jawad]

if two wism are active - active in vss mode

how can deploy 300 AP in this case and make  controller redandacy

also it  can use the same subnet for  managment + ap managment interface for  all  controller

for example

wism 1 hase two controller A and B

wism 2 hase two controller C and D

controoler A   managment + ap managment = 192.168.10.1/24

controoler B   managment + ap managment = 192.168.10.2/24

controoler C   managment + ap managment = 192.168.10.3/24

controoler D   managment + ap managment = 192.168.10.4/24

or  controller C and D  must have different subnet

[Federico Ziliotto · Accepted solution]

Hi Mohammad,

Redundancy for the APs is achieved by configuring primary, secondary and tertiary controllers.

There is no redundancy between controllers in a way that one controller is in standby mode and keeps verifying whether another active controller is operational.

In your case, you could for example consider the following options:

N + N redundancy:

150 APs with primary controller A and secondary controller D for example.

150 APs with primary controller C and secondary controller B for example.

This will allow an easier redundancy configuration.

(pseudo) N + 1 redundancy:

100 APs with primary controller A; 50 of them with secondary controller C and other 50 with secondary controller D.

100 APs with primary controller B and secondary controller D.

100 APs with primary controller C; 50 of them with secondary controller A and other 50 with secondary controller B.

This is a bit trickier, but it would allow less load per controller and still a fairly robust redundancy in case one of the two Cat6k's goes down.

Regards,

Fede

--

If  this helps you and/or answers your question please mark the question as  "answered" and/or rate it, so other users can easily find it.

[mohammad abdul jawad]

thanks alot for this information