Malin, first, this is NOT a direct support board and it shouldn't be thought of as anything more than a volunteer-based community support community. People like myself (Arubans) do not spend our entire day waiting for or looking for responses to follow up on. Well, maybe Colin does. So no one is ignoring you, sometimes we are working in the background on your behalf while doing our regular job (none of us get paid to haunt these boards). Hope that makes sense.

That said, I spent some time yesterday discussing with engineering on how to make this work with IAP. For controller-based solutions, it works fine because we can configure the number of IPs allowed per mac address on the WLAN. Unfortunately IAP does NOT allow this modification to the WLAN stack, so the only application that will work in your case is to use 501 as a wired client bridge for a single device with mac cloning.

If you want to get another IAP-205, that will absolutely support mesh bridging to bridge the network for however many devices you have on the remote IAP. There are numerous pages on setting that up. My apologies for that not working.

What was the 501 associating to (AP model, OS, controller if applicable, etc)? There are some settings that would need to be adjusted on your WLAN to support this if you are putting more than one device behind the 501. 

Well the 501 network bridge connect to an hp popw switch and the aruba iap 205 doesn't work,  the 5 devices connected to switch keep dropping the connection.  The 501 is not that configurable so are there changes needed on the iap?

Come ono guys, at aruba don't make a suggestion and then drop off.  I even opened a case with hpe support for the bridge and they are no help.

Note the 501 supports UP TO 15 wired devices behind it, so if you have more than the switch+14 devices to backhaul, then mesh will be your next logical solution. otherwise if it's a handful of devices, then the 501 is much easier.

the device is an iap205 and there is more than one device plugged into the switch (hp1910 jg394A) that the bridge is plugged into.

As long as there is not a situation where there is limited bandwidth, it is a matter of personal style.  If bridge or tunnel is making (1) administration harder (2) application visibility limited or (3) traffic degraded, choose the opposite forwarding mode.

I guess the hostname is okay on airwave

He just want to see the hostname for now...

He is getting clearpass but he does not have it yet...

He wants to see in airwave the hostname at least so he can locate the device... or at least know to who belongs that ma address...

Collin

If the user is using mac authentication

It will override username if we use the aruba os 6.5? becuase the username is the mac address

Collin

i configured this on the client

"If you are using any other ArubaOS, the network must support dynamic dns registration of DHCP hostnames into DNS. Airwave will then do the reverse DNS lookup to find out the hostname... "

This worked pretty good!

Thank you!

---

jhoward wrote:

MST200s are stand-alone FatAP, you can use MeshConfig to manage and monitor MSTs/MSRs. Note that MST200 is 11n AP, and will not be as fast or feature-rich as the 11ac IAPs or AOS APs.

 

As far as your links, are they two separate PtP links or are you looking for redundant portals and points between two buildings? If they are two separate PtP links, are the spatially separated such that the two PtP pairs will not be able to hear each other?

---

Sorry, just added some clarification to my orginal post. The site has three plants and wired AP will be at business office. I am not really worried about speed per say. There would not be whole lot of traffic on this MESH, mainly for process control network data.

MST200s are stand-alone FatAP, you can use MeshConfig to manage and monitor MSTs/MSRs. Note that MST200 is 11n AP, and will not be as fast or feature-rich as the 11ac IAPs or AOS APs.

As far as your links, are they two separate PtP links or are you looking for redundant portals and points between two buildings? If they are two separate PtP links, are the spatially separated such that the two PtP pairs will not be able to hear each other?

---

jhoward wrote:

Yes, essentially configure the MST200 IP address, the Mesh SSID and PSK, set neighbor whitelist, and configure wired interfaces for whatever network(s) you need them to backhaul. that's it. 

 

No license on MeshConfig. Just purchase it and install on a Windows server somewhere.

When you say "Just purchase it", you mean the MST200 unit not the MeshConfig, right? If not, would you mind sharing a part# for purchasing the MeshConfig?

Thanks. So for initial configuration, I need to configure MST 200s one by one manually and manage them with MESHConfig tool on laptop "centrally" once installed, right? Is there any license required for the MESHConfig tool?

---

rockbird wrote:

Opps I posted this to the wrong thread. here goes: 

Colin, one last question on this. In visualRF, predicitve, I can show the heatmaps for 5GHz  and of course 2.4 is about 3x the coverage distance. would you say that by lowering the 2.4 TX to 9 that would give about the same coverage disatance as 5GHZ? 

 Also, how would you go about monitoring the 2.4 usage? 

 

I guess I could try to simulate that in VRF but wanted your input? Thxs 

---

Lowering the 2.4ghz to 9 has nothing to do with VisualRF.  I was answering your question about too much coverage.  You measure too much coverage based on RF utilization.  I cannot say that lowering 2.4ghz to 9 would provide the same coverage at 5ghz because there are quite a few variables at play.  Also, at a high density we are not talking about coverage, we have enough coverage; we are talking about reducing contention because of too much coverage.

You would monitor 2.4ghz usage with channel utilization.

Nothing I discussed could be modeled in VisualRF.

Thanks Capalli, 

All of those can also be performed only with an instant cluster or any of them would requiere a controller?

I don't believe that you can support dynamic bandwidth allocation with the IAPs nor controllers. Might be supported in something like a Palo Alto firewall. 

the automatic firmware check on our Virtual Controller (2 IAP 205's) says 4.1.3.0 is the latest. How come? It should be 4.1.3.1, right?

PS: also, how do I check if both controllers updated their firmware, and not just 1? Through the web-interface of the virtual controller it doesn't seem to show which firmware an IAP has. It only shows which firmware the VC has.