Wireless Access

Frequent Contributor I

AppRF v2 supported Platform

For the new 6.4 and AppRF v2, i have uploaded the image to a 3400 controller and when i try to create a policy it shows that:

Note: Application rule will not be applied to unsupported platform



So which platforms are supported ? I heard only 72xx series (and the new version from them to be relased) but couldn't find an official document, anybody has that ?


Thanks in Advance for the help.


and FYI i tried the policies and doesn't work nothing is blocked so for sure the 3400 is not supported (unless i'm doing something wrong :) )

Guru Elite

Re: AppRF v2 supported Platform


*Answers and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and not necessarily the position of Aruba Networks or Hewlett Packard Enterprise.*
ArubaOS 8.3 User Guide
InstantOS 8.3 User Guide
Airheads Knowledgebase
Frequent Contributor I

Re: AppRF v2 supported Platform

that was fast :) thanks a lot

Occasional Contributor II

Re: AppRF v2 supported Platform

So from how I read that document on AppRF 2.0 there are only limitations based on the controller model? 


Are there any limitations based on AP Model?  I currently have a pair of 7210 Controllers but a mixture of AP Models


AP-65 (working to replace with AP-115 to get 6.4 support)



RAP-3WN for Wired Guest Access

Guru Elite

Re: AppRF v2 supported Platform

It's a combination of controller and code.

6.4 is required for AppRF 2.0, so if you're AP's aren't supported in 6.4, then you'd need to replace those APs before you upgrade your controller code.

Tim Cappalli | Aruba Security
@timcappalli | timcappalli.me | ACMX #367 / ACCX #480
Occasional Contributor II

Re: AppRF v2 supported Platform

Ok sounds good.  Planning to get rid of the old AP-65 just didn't know if it was going to be anything like 6.3 I think it was with Client Match that both AP-65 and 105 can run 6.3 but features Client Match were shut off based on AP model.  Sounds like that is not the case with these.

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