Hi all,
I've been digging round the forums for the last couple of hours trying to get a clear definition of each of these roles in order to best define a new standard design principle for our wireless LAN infrastructure. We are moving from a Cisco centric environment towards Aruba, so I apologise now for any obvious mistakes in the wording used in this post.
In our environment, we typically deploy dual controllers at our sites as having a level of resiliency is important for a number of applications that run over the wireless infrastructure. What I'm struggling with a little bit is when configuring these devices, which of the several options would be best suited to our environment. Having read multiple posts one thing that is obvious is that a 'master' is required, for obvious configuration reasons. What I'm struggling a little bit with is what role the second controller should adopt, and the pro's and con's of each of them. In our POC/POV environment I currently have it set as a 'local', I'm using LMS and VRRP to provide resiliency for the APs. This works very well during controller failure. However, I think how I currently have my controllers deployed is wrong. From what I have read, APs, in this scenario, should be terminated on the 'local' and not the 'master' which is how I have them now defined.
So question 1 is, should the APs use the 'local' as the primary LMS / active VRRP with the 'master' as a backup?
and question 2 is, given this topology, should I consider using something other than 'master' / 'local' i.e. master primary / master backup ?
I'll continue to read on as I'd like to understand this in detail myself, but would appreciate some advice on getting the basic understanding correct and any references to documents to back this up would be much appreciated.