@Abi wrote:
hi cjoseph,
Thank you for your time, I would like to make this more interesting and to know more about the knowledge and deployment, quick questions:
1- The network with Mobility Controllers SHOULD have at least one master controller, and the network can not work with only Local controllers. ( Unless you started one local as master to load configuration to other MC then switched it to local again).
<1. Network cannot work without a master controller, because that is what configures the system.>
2- in Master (Active) - Master (Standby) , scenario:
A- I need to configure both masters because the standby master will not take configuration from the active and they will not syncronize with each other unless I have AWMS. however, they synchronise database and RF Plan manually or automatically.
B- I can not have - Master ( Active ) - Master ( Active).
<The standby master, when configured as such, will get the entire config from the master. You do NOT need AWMS to manage configuration, at all. You can optionally nfigure the local database and RF plan to synchronize between master and backup master using the "database synchronize" configuration command.
3- In Master - Local scenario:
a- Can I make redundancy between the Master and Local ? using VRRP ? (e.g. the comming point)
b- If the Local goes down will the Master takeover and terminate the AP, and when Local come up it will takeover and terminate AP ? ( I belive the answer is yes if we eable preempt capability).
<a. Yes. b. yes, with Preempt
c- The main advantage of Master-Local is to minimze configuration, management and troubleshooting.
<The main advantage of master-local is to increase AP capacity>
d- If the Master is not full to its maximum AP capacity and you have a new building, we can add new Local MC to manage new AP, however, if it is full we then need new Master MC.
<If master is full, you can add as many local MC as you need. You only require one master and you can add only locals to add capacity, if you want.>
4- Do we consider a single M3 blade a controller or the whole chassie (even with 4 M3 blades) will be considered controller ?
e.g. If I have 6000 MC with four M3 blades, does this mean I can have 4 Controllers inside a single 6000 chassie (regardless of Master/Local Configuration) ?
<Yes. 4 Controllers, yes. The 4 controllers can be configured in any combination--They only share power in the chassis>
5- If I have 12 AP and one 6000 MC and one 620 Controller ... an implementation of 6000 as Master and 620 as local can not be done because 620 local can not handle 12 AP (its max is 8). therefore, the other local controllers can determine the need of new Master controllers or a replacement of existing Local Controllers.
<You can do this, by using separate AP groups that point to separate controllers. For example 6 APs can be in ap-group 1 which points to the 620 and 6 APs can be in ap-group 2 which points to the 6000>
6- I can use both configurations (Master/Local) or (Master/Master) but it final choice depend on scalability issues, physical location, type of equipment and ease of configuration and personal choice, is not it ?
<Capacity and Redundancy are probably the biggest factors. An extreme example is that some of the largest networks would use two 3600 controllers, one for master, one for backup master and M3s as locals. The 3600 would not have any APs on them but would redirect APs that are sent to them to any number of downstream local controllers. The actual APs would terminate on the M3s as locals. The 3600s would back each other up, in that if one is down, you would still be able to configure your network on the fly>.
Thank you again :-) start feeling better when I start to understand.