Wireless Access

Hello Everyone

Im looking for an advice here.

 

I was reading the VRD of redundancy and i didnt find this sceanrio in there and i would like to know if it okay if i implement it this way

 

There is a client which want redundancy

The thing is that if i put master redundancy and also im putting local redundancy the cost will be really high

 

Now i was thinking if its possible to do this and there is no inconvenient with this.

 

Putting 2 controllers

Master-Master

Put them on VRRP

Put them on Active Active  to share the balance of the APS.

 

It seems that aruba recommends to always terminate the tunnel on the Local controller and to say it this way let just the master manage the configuration... but in this case ill be having the config and also the ap termination in here...

Any issue having this scenario? as i didnt find this specific one on the VRD?

Do you mean that you want to use two master controllers and no local?

 

There is no active-active master redundancy (I mean you can use VRRP to share the load but there will be no config or db synchronization etc.), active-active is available with locals only. What you can use is active-passive master redundancy.

 

Can you please specify how the deployment looks like? How many branches does the customer have?

 

If you have limited budget but want to have some redundancy I'd go for a master-local redundancy. If the local fails the AP connects back to the master controller (backup LMS IP), if the master fails the local will still work you only lose the config option until it becomes operational again. This can be used for n+1 redundancy (many branches have the master controller as backup).

its possible to do

Master and master backup redundancy and leaving

If the master fail, then all the APs fail over the backup but i still can do config changes.. is this possible? or its not possible?

 

Or the only possible setups are the ones on the VRD?

 

There are no branches.. its a campus deployment... with around 40 APS but they want redundancy :) but they would like that the budged doesnt goes too high and im just trying to get different option

 

Cheers

Carlos

In this case I would use active-passive master redundancy.

You can not use active-active master redundancy.

Hi NightShade, you can try using master-master with 2 VRRP using  2 VLAN within each controller, Master01 will be Active on VLAN1 and Master02 will be active on VLAN2.

Share the APs among the VLAN, when one master down, APs will be redirected to other controller.

 

Something like this

Master 1 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP-Active 

- VLAN 2: VRRP-Standby

 

Master2 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP Standby

- VLAN2 : VRRP Active 

 

 

Goodluck!

---

@slickers wrote:

Hi NightShade, you can try using master-master with 2 VRRP using  2 VLAN within each controller, Master01 will be Active on VLAN1 and Master02 will be active on VLAN2.

Share the APs among the VLAN, when one master down, APs will be redirected to other controller.

 

Something like this

Master 1 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP-Active 

- VLAN 2: VRRP-Standby

 

Master2 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP Standby

- VLAN2 : VRRP Active 

 

 

Goodluck!

---

This deployment consists independent master controllers which means you will not have synchronization between the masters, however, the load is shared among the controllers.

 

For synchronization you either need to use active-passive master redundancy or master-local redundancy.

 

On the other hand the cost would be the same with the independent master deployment because each of the controllers should be able to terminate the total number of AP's in order to provide full redundancy.

If the customer has 40 AP's probably they are using a 3400 controller. If they would use two controller to share the load then each controller should have 20 AP's which can be done with a 3200 controller, however, if one of these fails only 12 AP can be connected to the other controller.

 

Based on this in my opinion the customer should use active-passive master redundancy which provides failover and synchrozation also.

Check the documentation on Redudancy Design Guide. 

I'm refering to "Active –Active N to 1 Redundancy" on page 15. 

Im not sure is it still valid since its published on June 2005.

 

It might not be the best approach for setting up network, but its good to now any alternative :D

 

 

Goodluck!

I think it refers to a master-local scenario.

 

You can use active-active amongst locals, but not masters. You can also use master-local with backup LMS configuration but in this case (campus deployment) it just does not make any sense.

 

Since we are talking about two controllers in the same location in my opinion there is no better solution then active-passive master redundancy (check the AP count calculation above)

I think we are putting it on MASTER MASTER but it will be active standby... as it what it appears on the VRD.

 

Anyways Collin your opinion here would count a lot, please appear if you can :)

Sorry my mistakes :smileyembarrassed:

Yes, you can only have 2 master as active-pasive.. thanks zshusveti .. 

 

:)  :)

I'm a fan of master / local redundancy for scenarios like this. Split the APs into areas and terminate half on the master and half on the local and use VRRP on each to fail over.

 

You'll be using the resources on the 2nd controller instead of it sitting there "doing nothing".

In Master - Local set up if we do any configuration ( VirtualAP,AAA) configurations it will be automatically synchronized with local controller right?? - But in case of MASTER/MASTER configuration how it will sync ?? do we ned to configure in both controllers manually ? , for ex If we add a new VIrtual AP do the other master also will be configured or need to configure the same virtual AP in other master also manually ??

---

@zshusveti wrote:

---

@slickers wrote:

Hi NightShade, you can try using master-master with 2 VRRP using  2 VLAN within each controller, Master01 will be Active on VLAN1 and Master02 will be active on VLAN2.

Share the APs among the VLAN, when one master down, APs will be redirected to other controller.

 

Something like this

Master 1 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP-Active 

- VLAN 2: VRRP-Standby

 

Master2 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP Standby

- VLAN2 : VRRP Active 

 

 

Goodluck!

---

This deployment consists independent master controllers which means you will not have synchronization between the masters, however, the load is shared among the controllers.

 

For synchronization you either need to use active-passive master redundancy or master-local redundancy.

 

On the other hand the cost would be the same with the independent master deployment because each of the controllers should be able to terminate the total number of AP's in order to provide full redundancy.

If the customer has 40 AP's probably they are using a 3400 controller. If they would use two controller to share the load then each controller should have 20 AP's which can be done with a 3200 controller, however, if one of these fails only 12 AP can be connected to the other controller.

 

Based on this in my opinion the customer should use active-passive master redundancy which provides failover and synchrozation also.

---

---

@zshusveti wrote:

---

@slickers wrote:

Hi NightShade, you can try using master-master with 2 VRRP using  2 VLAN within each controller, Master01 will be Active on VLAN1 and Master02 will be active on VLAN2.

Share the APs among the VLAN, when one master down, APs will be redirected to other controller.

 

Something like this

Master 1 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP-Active 

- VLAN 2: VRRP-Standby

 

Master2 :

- VLAN1 : VRRP Standby

- VLAN2 : VRRP Active 

 

 

Goodluck!

---

This deployment consists independent master controllers which means you will not have synchronization between the masters, however, the load is shared among the controllers.

 

For synchronization you either need to use active-passive master redundancy or master-local redundancy.

 

On the other hand the cost would be the same with the independent master deployment because each of the controllers should be able to terminate the total number of AP's in order to provide full redundancy.

If the customer has 40 AP's probably they are using a 3400 controller. If they would use two controller to share the load then each controller should have 20 AP's which can be done with a 3200 controller, however, if one of these fails only 12 AP can be connected to the other controller.

 

Based on this in my opinion the customer should use active-passive master redundancy which provides failover and synchrozation also.

---

For master-master, you would use AirWave to sync the controllers. 


Thanks, 
Tim

Night,

We have a deployment where we will be moving towards the same option that zshusveti suggests, yes we lose sync between the two but we have processes in place to take care of that.

Or else, do what jrwhitehead is suggesting or simply, put 40aps on the local with the master being the failover option.

HI,

 

An idle solution for your deployment will be Master-Local  and terminate half of the AP( LMS) on the Master and another half on the local.

 

If you simply configure 2 VRRPs between controllers and configure virtual IPs as the master IPs of 2 set of APs will work but there won't be any SYNC between the controllers. hence the idle setup will be Master-Local and play around the LMS IP.

 

Hope got some clarity on this.