cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
496
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies

two wism module in vss mode

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 ?

2 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
Federico Ziliotto
Cisco Employee

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.

View solution in original post

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.

View solution in original post

4 REPLIES 4
Federico Ziliotto
Cisco Employee

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.

View solution in original post

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

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.

View solution in original post

thanks alot for this information

Create
Recognize Your Peers
Content for Community-Ad