Wireless Access

 

Aruba makes a capital distinction between CAP and RAP. In terms of capacity on a controller, 1 CAP kills 4 RAP's, that is how I look at it.

 

But it appears that on a private ipsec or mpls network, there is no technical reason for this distinction. Or am I mistaken ? Sure, we tunnel twice with a RAP but that is a small price to pay between 8 AP or 32 AP's on a W620.

 

This is not a rant : I appreciate/respect businessmodels, aruba-personnel need to get paid, Aruba Networks deserves to grow etc etc.

 

It's just that the distinction is so great & blatant, that I feel I missed something in the configuration and I look for justification in the business side.  

 

thx for killing this one for me

 

 

Not sure I understand your question. 

Generally on an MPLS network, you would use them as campus APs. 


Thanks, 
Tim

I see what you mean, but consider this :

 

If i configure ALL my AP's as RAP - even those that live on the campus of the controller, then I have the capacity of 32 AP on a W620, instead of 8. Why wouldn't I do that, on a gigabit network ?

 

 

Because you would lose some critical campus AP features that are needed in a campus environment. 


Thanks, 
Tim

 

Kindly name me one for inspiration.

Nerve,

 

Please relay your concerns to your local Aruba salesperson so that they can understand your specific issue.  In the newer 7000 series controllers the AP to Remote AP ratio is 1:1.   http://www.arubanetworks.com/pdf/products/matrix-mobility-controller.pdf

 

thank you Sir !