Wireless Access

Is there a limit to the number of per-user bandwidth contracts that a controller can track? What happens if that limit is met?

Thanks,

b

Are you asking how many can be configured or how many individual users can be applied to a single bandwidth contract?

If it's the former, I don't see any limit documented, but you can only apply one per user-role anyway.

If it's the latter, you're constrained to the user capacity of the controller.

Interesting. My issue is with the latter. I have a customer that has a per-user bandwidth contract on their largest SSID. I was going thru the logs and noticed errors saying that there were 'too many bandwidth contracts' applied. I'll look in Airwave to see how many users were on the controller at the time. If it is less than the 8k limit of the M3, I'll post a note.

Hate to freshen up an old thread but.....the M3 @ this customer have ~1500 users in a "Student" role. At some point, it stops writing bandwidth contracts. We haven't figured out how many users get on before it stops. But newly authenticated users get no bandwidth limit while those who signed on earlier are still constrained.....strange

I just want to state my personal opinion that bandwidth contracts should not be used for hundreds of users in large scale networks, because each user that is rate-limited has space reserved to buffer that traffic.  The memory left over from critical tasks to do buffering can be limited, so bandwidth contracts will be the "odd man out" if there is every limited amounts of memory.  

We're seeing this ERRS message as well. We have a BW contract on the pre-auth role for CP. It seems to occur as a function of peak times. We  always seem to be under the 8k user limit on the controller, but at last check it was over 6k. So it sounds like I should consider removing the contract?

Feb  2 11:14:56 2012 [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx] authmgr[1705]: <399803> <ERRS> |authmgr|  An internal system error has occurred at file bwm.c function bwm_add_contract line 59 error Too many bandwidth contracts.

Mike Dickson

UMass Amherst

That is the same error. We've been talking about a PER ROLE contract instead of a PER USER. This would still protect but may have less consequences than the PER USER. Any advice on this possible change would be appreciated.