Wireless Access

I imagine this ones going to come down to personal preferance, but wondering if there are any significant pros/cons for having fewer larger groups, or more smaller groups...

 

I suppose the problem with having fewer larger groups is that if you do need to make changes that could affect a group, you could be impacting more users, however, if you have smaller groups, you may have to apply any changes you make to more groups, so more of an admin overhead.  Although smaller groups does allow you to tweak things in certain areas without larger impact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There's no good or bad way , I think it depends on personal preference.

In my case I use large or several groups based on the way the APs are physically distributed , meaning that if you have several buildings or locations that are not very close to each other then split the APs into different groups gives the flexibility to create different ARM profiles, VAPs and AP system profiles per location .

For example you may have SSIDs / VLANs that you only want those broadcast in location or maybe you need assign a set of APs to another controller .

But like you mentioned having one large one makes it easier to manage vs having several APgroups when you need to make changes .

+1 on what Victor said - if you have diverse RF environments, certainly makes sense to group the APs based on that as a minimum to aid for tuning of RF related things. Even if you consider the RF to be fairly constant, it can make sense to group APs based on something geograhical - can maybe be used later in radius policy since ap-group is sent up as a VSA.

 

We have some customers that have pushed the number of groups pretty high, well into the 100+ category, you are unlikely to run out of config space (but it can be a challenge for smaller/older controllers).

 

if you can navigate your way around a bit of basic shell scripting, you can quickly and easily handle the additional work required if you have to make changes to many ap-groups.

 

regards

-jeff