• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wireless power level

C

Cooky

Golden Member
We're rolling out a bunch of Aironet AP's (27 of them).
I'm trying to match the site survey result. Survey uses 30mw, but I only have options for 25 and 50mw. Do I set it to 25 or 50?

Also, should I also match the power level for clients (for those who're capable of Cisco extension)

I'd really appreciate for any feedbacks.
 
doesn't matter too much.

and the CCK power management for the clients should be enabled. The AP will tell the client what to do.

Also, have you thought about roaming and how the clients are going to be addressed? Is the Autonomous or Lightweight APs?
 
What did you mean by "roaming?"
Clients will be DHCP assigned by our Cisco Clean Access server.
They'll also grab the setting from AP's.
(they don't behave this way by default even if they have the Cisco extensions enabled. You haev to specify it)

They're all Autonomous right now, but we'll roll out a controller and convert them to LWAPP.

Everytime I need to make a change, I have to login 27 times and it's driving me crazy. I know some other existing products like WLSE or WLSM can manage the autonomous APs but we don't wanna buy something that will be phased out soon.
 
WLSM/WLSE solution is being phased out rapidly for the lightweight/controller version.

You're going to run into trouble when clients roam (move to another access point) unless all the access points are on the same layer2 network. You'll also want to setup WDS for fast roaming and radio management.
 
well the APs will still have to be on the same layer2 network unless you have a WLSM or a Controller for L3 mobility.
 
Yes we'll be rolling out a 4400 wireless controller to manage all that.

I hate the fact that their WiSM only supports up to 300 AP's while the old WLSM supports up to 600. Their Airespace models don't really scale well.

There are also things that Cisco didn't specify clearly in docs that we had to find out ourselves...Cisco needs to do a better job at their new products.
 
Get the account team involved. Let them know your frustrations. Not to bitch, but mainly to give them feedback.

I've already grilled the wireless product mananager over all of this.

I'm ticked because I've put in place about 20 WLSMs and then they dump the product basically. Cisco is cool enough to give me WISMs for free in trade though.

My personal model now is if it is over 100 APs I'll go the WISM route. Under that it's the controller appliance.
 
We've done that (talking to Cisco) for the Cisco Clean Access product line. We're rolling it out in all our 73 locations in N. America.
We keep running into stuff that shouldn't have happened because Cisco rolled out the product in a rush for marketing reasons.
At least they're providing full support for us, partly because they're kinda using us as their testing bed. We're testing the Mac CCA beta agents for them right now.

Now, for wireless solutions, we use 4400 or the integrated 3750 switches for remote sites that don't have 6500.
 
So far we only have 4400 controllers and haven't had a chance to get our hands on a 3750, but from what I heard, it's got the same functionality as the 4400.
Those models weren't available when we rolled out the regular 3750 in our remote sites, but for any new sites, we'll use them instead of standalone 4400s.
 
Cool. I've been working on a Road Map and scaling recommendations. Over 100 = dual WISMs. Under 100 = dual controllers. All installations have an anchor controller as well for guest access.

Let me know how the 3750s turn out. Maybe that would be good for the under 20 access point installation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top