Wireless Access

Reply
Occasional Contributor I
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎08-09-2013

6.3.0.1 in production

Hello,

 

We're considering deploying 6.3.0.1 on a pair of 7240s for our campus wlan. We have about 800 APS and 4,500 concurrent users. Is anyone here doing something similar? The license pooling feature is something we could use today and that is why we are considering the jump from the GA train to the Early Deployment code. We get the impression that the Early Deployment code is not really "beta", but I don't understand what keeps it from being GA. If you've done this I'd love to hear from you about your experience, positive or negative. We're also curious how long it typically takes for Early Release code to make it to GA.

 

Thanks!

 

Troy

Regular Contributor I
Posts: 159
Registered: ‎03-03-2011

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

I just deployed a 3400 and 2 M3's ~400 APs with the 6.3.01 code in order to get the centralized licensing and fast failover features. Both work great and I have not experienced any issues yet. 

Regards,

Josh
___________
ACMP, ACCP
MVP
Posts: 4,272
Registered: ‎07-20-2011

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

We currently have 6.3.0.1 on test environment with 3 M3s :
- one acting as a master / license server (vrrp setup)
- one acting as local / license backup (vrrp setup)
- one acting as local

It works really well so far no issues with the license pooling .

We only have about 40 APs attach and like 15 users , ClientMatch its been working well for most clients after doing some tweaking in the arm ClientMatch thresholds (SNR / signal ).

Our plan is to test the code for 3/4 weeks before deploying it in production .
Thank you

Victor Fabian
Lead Mobility Engineer @ Integration Partners
AMFX | ACMX | ACDX | ACCX | CWAP | CWDP | CWNA
Occasional Contributor I
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎08-09-2013

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

Thanks to you both for your input. Glad to hear the license pooling is working well for you.

Regular Contributor II
Posts: 232
Registered: ‎03-14-2012

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

Hello All,

 

I just recently upgraded to Release 6.3.0.1 and I noticed that the built in/pre-defined ACLs associated with logon-control, captive portal and so on, don't exist.

 

So if you try applying the captive portal firewall policy to a Role, I noticed that no ACLs exist. Is that the case with you all? Is this a bug on the Code? Or does Aruba require us to implement the ACLs on our own?

 

 

Regular Contributor II
Posts: 232
Registered: ‎03-14-2012

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

My bad! Completely forgot to reboot my Controller after the License was installed.

Frequent Contributor II
Posts: 106
Registered: ‎10-20-2011

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

I can't say I've moved on to 6.3.0.1 or even 6.3.0.0.  But my experience with moving to the ED of 6.2.0.0 was really bad.  It was quite buggy and unstable in my environment.  Once the 6.2.0.x release went ot stable all my problems were gone.  I will never upgrade to an ED release again.  I only have 200 APs and not nearly as many connected users.

 

 

Occasional Contributor I
Posts: 5
Registered: ‎08-09-2013

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

Sorry to hear that. What you describe is exactly what we are concerned about. Were you able to get support from Aruba on ED 6.2?

Frequent Contributor II
Posts: 106
Registered: ‎10-20-2011

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

I was but the eventual fix was getting the stable release which was well over a month since I had my issues of my controllers randomly crashing.
Regular Contributor II
Posts: 232
Registered: ‎03-14-2012

Re: 6.3.0.1 in production

Guys!

 

I couldn't agree more. There are a few concerns that I have with 6.3.0.1 at this point (especially with Wired 802.1x). Currently have a Ticket with TAC on the issue. But, it might just be a working as designed issue, however, I and TAC found it quite strange.

 

As much as it's doing most of what I expect it to do, I still have some reservations and I will definitely ask my Client to upgrade as soon as a Code becomes GA.

Search Airheads
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: