@aleopoldie wrote:
Well .. I did not yet configure the 2nd WLC, but I would like a cluster so that when the primary is going down, the secondary takes his place, should I go for Master/Master or Master/Local ? What's the difference between these solutions ?
The purpose is to allow the 2nd WLC to act as a master for AP's and licenses in case of the 1st one is down, but as I read, Local Controllers don't have the capability to act as a License server, si I have to go for the Master/Master solution ?
I don't understand this Master/Local scenario...
And what about If the Master WLC (which would be the License server) is going down, the 2nd one will become the new license server ?
AL
With master/master (standby), APS can only terminate on a single controller (the master). The other controller, the standby master, cannot service any access points and only becomes active when the master gives up control of the VRRP. The backup (standby) master has a full copy of the configuration and the internal databases that are required to run a network; it just cannot service any access points. To configure a backup master, you need to configure a VRRP between the master and the potential backup master. You would then configure master-redundancy between the two. The standby master also becomes the backup centralized licensing server if you turn on centralized licensing. You can only configure the global configuration from the active master. If the active master fails, the backup (standby) master becomes the master and you can then terminate access points on it and edit the global configuration from there.
A local controller can terminate APs, and it has a copy of the global configuration, but you cannot edit the global configuration from there. You can terminate APs on the master controller and local controllers. If you have centralized licensing configured, any licenses that you add to the master or the local controller(s) become pooled and they share the aggregate licenses between each other.
Sorry for not answering your question before.
The advantage of having a backup (standby) master is that it can fully take the place of a master in terms of allowing you to edit the configuration, and being the centralized licensing server, if the master fails. The backup (standby) controller unfortunately cannot terminate any access points until the master fails.
The advantage of having a local, is that you can terminate APs on a local and the master at the same time which will double your capacity. If the master fails, the local will only have a read-only copy of the global configuration (cannot be edited), and it will only retain the licenses that you manually installed on that controller. Having a backup master allows you to continue to edit the global configuration and retain all of your pooled licenses on the fly... Most large deployments have a master/backup master pair and locals to ensure that configuration and licensing redundancy is protected....