Wireless Access

Hello, I am starting with Aruba WLCs and for my 1st project I have 2 x 7205 to configure as redundants. I also have a license for 62 AP's.

I added the license on the 1st WLC.

I checked on the official documentation, but I don't really understand which solution can I choose ..

- Active:Active ?

- Active:Standby ?

Something else ?

Thank you,

AL

Campus Network Design VRD:  http://community.arubanetworks.com/t5/Validated-Reference-Design/Campus-Network-Design/ta-p/155134

Chapter 5:  Redundancy.

Hello cjoseph,

Thank you for your feedback.

I already checked this documentation but the licensing is not mentionned.

I just have 1 license for 62 AP's, which redundancy solution I am able to implement ?

Thank you,

AL

If you turn on centralized licensing you will only need 1 AP license for each AP. With any type of redundancy.

What do you mean by if I turn on centralized licensing ?

In the moment I simply added my license on the primary WLC

AL

Okay. Enable Centralized Licensing, then:

http://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS_65x_WebHelp/Web_Help_Index.htm#ArubaFrameStyles/New_Licenses/Config_CL.htm

Well .. I did not yet configure the 2nd WLC, but I would like a cluster so that when the primary is going down, the secondary takes his place, should I go for Master/Master or Master/Local ? What's the difference between these solutions ?

The purpose is to allow the 2nd WLC to act as a master for AP's and licenses in case of the 1st one is down, but as I read, Local Controllers don't have the capability to act as a License server, si I have to go for the Master/Master solution ?

I don't understand this Master/Local scenario...

And what about If the Master WLC (which would be the License server) is going down, the 2nd one will become the new license server ?

AL

---

@aleopoldie wrote:

Well .. I did not yet configure the 2nd WLC, but I would like a cluster so that when the primary is going down, the secondary takes his place, should I go for Master/Master or Master/Local ? What's the difference between these solutions ?

The purpose is to allow the 2nd WLC to act as a master for AP's and licenses in case of the 1st one is down, but as I read, Local Controllers don't have the capability to act as a License server, si I have to go for the Master/Master solution ?

I don't understand this Master/Local scenario...

 

And what about If the Master WLC (which would be the License server) is going down, the 2nd one will become the new license server ?

 

AL

---

With master/master (standby), APS can only terminate on a single controller (the master).  The other controller, the standby master, cannot service any access points and only becomes active when the master gives up control of the VRRP.  The backup (standby) master has a full copy of the configuration and the internal databases that are required to run a network; it just cannot service any access points.  To configure a backup master, you need to configure a VRRP between the master and the potential backup master.  You would then configure master-redundancy between the two.  The standby master also becomes the backup centralized licensing server if you turn on centralized licensing.  You can only configure the global configuration from the active master.  If the active master fails, the backup (standby) master becomes the master and you can then terminate access points on it and edit the global configuration from there.

A local controller can terminate APs, and it has a copy of the global configuration, but you cannot edit the global configuration from there.  You can terminate APs on the master controller and local controllers.  If you have centralized licensing configured, any licenses that you add to the master or the local controller(s) become pooled and they share the aggregate licenses between each other.

Sorry for not answering your question before.

The advantage of having a backup (standby) master is that it can fully take the place of a master in terms of allowing you to edit the configuration, and being the centralized licensing server, if the master fails.  The backup (standby) controller unfortunately cannot terminate any access points until the master fails.

The advantage of having a local, is that you can terminate APs on a local and the master at the same time which will double your capacity.   If the master fails, the local will only have a read-only copy of the global configuration (cannot be edited), and it will only retain the licenses that you manually installed on that controller.   Having a backup master allows you to continue to edit the global configuration and retain all of your pooled licenses on the fly...  Most large deployments have a master/backup master pair and locals to ensure that configuration and licensing redundancy is protected....

Wow thank you so much for this answer, I got it now :)

I'll go for the master/master (standby)

Just a last question about about what you said for the licenses

  Having a backup master allows you to continue to edit the global configuration and retain all of your pooled licenses on the fly...  Most large deployments have a master/backup master pair and locals to ensure that configuration and licensing redundancy is protected....

What do you mean by on the fly ? Even if I turn on centralized licensing, when the Master WLC will go down, the standby Master will take his place and and license will also be active on the standby, right ?

You meant this licensing redundancy is more secure with a Local WLC than for a Master/Master scenario ?

AL

Only a master or a backup master can be a licensing master.  A local would not retain any pooled licenses if the master and the backup master went down (actually, you would have 30 days to license a local that does not have any more contact with a licensing master).

Ok I got it, thank you very much. I'll configure that in the next days.

I have 2 questions ...

- When the cluster is built, and the virtual IP is determined, which IP I have to put as the lms-ip in my ap system profile and in the ip helper address  ? The IP address of the primary WLC or the VIP ?

- In the moment, here is what I've configured :

WLC 1 :

!
master-redundancy
master-vrrp 100
peer-ip-address 172.16.100.2 ipsec Telindus123
!
vrrp 100
priority 110
ip address 172.16.100.1
description "Prefered-Master"
vlan 100
tracking master-up-time 2 add 10
no shutdown
!
database synchronize period 30
database synchronize rf-plan-data
!
WLC 2 :

!
master-redundancy
master-vrrp 100
peer-ip-address 172.16.100.3 ipsec Telindus123
!
vrrp 100
priority 100
ip address 172.16.100.1
description "Standby-Master"
vlan 100
tracking master-up-time 2 add 10
no shutdown
!
database synchronize period 30
database synchronize rf-plan-data
!

Do I have to configure an ha group-profile, an ha group-membership and a role active/standby/dual ?

Thank you,

AL

AL -

I discovered this thread and wanted to see if this setup worked out for you.  I have two 7205 controllers with master redundancy setup also, no locals, with centralilzed licensing.  Did you have to set the LMS IP in your controller configs?

Thanks in advance -

Jericho

Please open a  new thread.  This thread is 3 years old..

Okay.  If you turn  Centralized Licensing on,  on the primary, anything you add after that will share any licenses.

I don't get it ...

Can you answer my questions ?

Also, should I have to use VRRP solution or PSK/certificate

On all documentations I found this is really not clear

AL