Wireless Access

I've got an environment with 4x 620 local controllers, each at different cities, and a single 3200 master controller. All are running 6.1.3.0 AOS.  All four sites have static routes that allow communication between the sites. Each site is it's own AP group with 2 WLAN's each and are running mostly 105's with a few 125's.

I would like to convert one of the existing local controllers to the master & remove the existing master altogether. I have searched through the User Guides as well as the forums, but haven't found this same scenario discussed yet. Side note, I do plan on upgrading all of the controllers to 6.1.3.0-Aigroup after this is completed. I would go to a newer version of AOS, but that is the newest I'm aware of that supports AirGroup features. Here are my questions. Thanks in advance!

Can I convert the local to master and still continue to terminate AP's to it?

Since these 4 locals are scattered around the country, I'm guessing that I will lose connectivity to them when hte master-local GRE tunnel goes down. Is there any way to do this procedure where I can maintain connectivity?

Each local is currently properly licensed for it's own AP's. Will this new design impact licensing? Keep in mind we are running older code that doesn't support the new centralized licensing feature.

Lastly, other than just ease of configuration, is there really any benefit to using a master-local design when I could just convert them all to standalone masters? The caveat to that is I NEED to have point-to-point tunnels of some sort to allow connectivity between them. Thoughts?

Can I convert the local to master and still continue to terminate AP's to it?

It depends how your APs discovering the controller .

For this case you are probably better off doing DHCP option 43 and based on the segment/VLAN if these are unique to each location and point the APs to the right controller 

Since these 4 locals are scattered around the country, I'm guessing that I will lose connectivity to them when hte master-local GRE tunnel goes down. Is there any way to do this procedure where I can maintain connectivity?

Once you make the change from Local to Master the controller needs to be rebooted , these keep the same IPs and routing doesn't change you should still be able to reach them

Each local is currently properly licensed for it's own AP's. Will this new design impact licensing? Keep in mind we are running older code that doesn't support the new centralized licensing feature.

If those are properly licensed and you are not planning on adding more APs that the supported license count you don't have to worry about having centralize licensing or loosing any licensing capabilities.

Lastly, other than just ease of configuration, is there really any benefit to using a master-local design when I could just convert them all to standalone masters?

The advantage of having the Master-Local is that it allows you to have a single point of configuration and every controller has the same config.

Once each controller becomes a master you will loose that , which means that each controller will have its own config.

The caveat to that is I NEED to have point-to-point tunnels of some sort to allow connectivity between them. Thoughts?

Don't quite understand this question , can you give a little bit more details?

Do you currently have any type of AP redudancy configured ? in case of failover scenario ? 

Victor, thanks for the quick response. To clarify, all of the AP's terminate to the local controller at that respective site. There is no need for a redundant master since this isn't a business or enterprise. 

My concern with changing the master is that the only way I have to get to the locals is through the local-master tunnel. When i change the master, the locals will all drop off because the tunnel will go down. You're right that having a master does make configuration more simple. The other reason it benefits me is that it automatically creates that tunnel between sites that I can use for site-to-site communication.

---

@victorfabian wrote:

Can I convert the local to master and still continue to terminate AP's to it?

It depends how your APs discovering the controller .

For this case you are probably better off doing DHCP option 43 and based on the segment/VLAN if these are unique to each location and point the APs to the right controller 

 

Since these 4 locals are scattered around the country, I'm guessing that I will lose connectivity to them when hte master-local GRE tunnel goes down. Is there any way to do this procedure where I can maintain connectivity?

Once you make the change from Local to Master the controller needs to be rebooted , these keep the same IPs and routing doesn't change you should still be able to reach them

 

Each local is currently properly licensed for it's own AP's. Will this new design impact licensing? Keep in mind we are running older code that doesn't support the new centralized licensing feature.

If those are properly licensed and you are not planning on adding more APs that the supported license count you don't have to worry about having centralize licensing or loosing any licensing capabilities.

 

Lastly, other than just ease of configuration, is there really any benefit to using a master-local design when I could just convert them all to standalone masters?

The advantage of having the Master-Local is that it allows you to have a single point of configuration and every controller has the same config.

Once each controller becomes a master you will loose that , which means that each controller will have its own config.

 

The caveat to that is I NEED to have point-to-point tunnels of some sort to allow connectivity between them. Thoughts?

Don't quite understand this question , can you give a little bit more details?

 

Do you currently have any type of AP redudancy configured ? in case of failover scenario ? 

 

 

---

Anyone have thoughts how to accomplish this without losing connectivity to my remote local controllers?

Bump. I'm getting down to crunch time & could really use some assistance on this. Any other thoughts or suggestions?

Rather than retiring that 3200 controller, you should consider using it as an Airgroup controller in an Overlay deployment.

http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS%206_3_1_Web_Help/Web_Help_Index.htm#ArubaFrameStyles/AirGroup/Overlay_Deployment_Model.htm%3FTocPath%3DAirGroup|_____3

---

@Michael_Clarke wrote:

Rather than retiring that 3200 controller, you should consider using it as an Airgroup controller in an Overlay deployment.

 

http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS%206_3_1_Web_Help/Web_Help_Index.htm#ArubaFrameStyles/AirGroup/Overlay_Deployment_Model.htm%3FTocPath%3DAirGroup|_____3

 

 

---

Michael, that is a very cool idea & one that I will definitely keep in mind for future projects. There are some more details behind this whole project that preclude that controller from being used there. Thanks for the suggestion though. I'll read up on the overlay deployment.

Here is a bit more information. The 4 remote sites are really all intended to be autonomous for the most part. These are actual residences. However, there are services in place that require intra-site communication (home automation controls, HVAC, AV...etc). Having said that, this all needs to be deployed in such a way that internet service could go down any given site & the local services (bonjour) need to still function).