<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic RE: Apartment block deployment, in ExtremeWireless (Identifi)</title>
    <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46222#M4199</link>
    <description>Thanks Guys. Really helpful. As we won't have a radius or NAC, i suspect authenticating as Ron suggested can't be done&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Justsomebodi</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-21T19:56:00Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Apartment block deployment,</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46219#M4196</link>
      <description>Hello all&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
What would be the best way to deploy a wifi solution to a block of 500 residentual apartments with each apartment isolated from the others? The only authentication would be PSK, so I don't think policy won't work. I did think of using multiple controllers with SSID based seperation, but I would need 5 or more C5210 controllers.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 13:22:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46219#M4196</guid>
      <dc:creator>Justsomebodi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-20T13:22:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Apartment block deployment,</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46220#M4197</link>
      <description>Hello&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Is this article helpful: &lt;A href="https://gtacknowledge.extremenetworks.com/articles/Solution/Block-MU-to-MU-enabled-but-users-can-still-communicate" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noreferrer noopener"&gt;https://gtacknowledge.extremenetworks.com/articles/Solution/Block-MU-to-MU-enabled-but-users-can-still-communicate&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
Regards&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
-Gareth</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:40:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46220#M4197</guid>
      <dc:creator>Gareth_Mitchell</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-21T14:40:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Apartment block deployment,</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46221#M4198</link>
      <description>Hi J,&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
if the traffic is passing thru the controller (bridge@EWC and routed topology) just enable "block MU to MU traffic" in the WLAN service in the advanced settings.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
If it's bridge@AP just follow the link that Gareth posted for a configuration example.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
But the result is that also clients from the same apartment couldn't talk to each other i.e. no streaming from your noetbook to Chromcast via WLAN.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
With only PSK and no authentication method policy will not work as there is no way to know whether the client in apartment#1 is connected to the AP in aparment#1 - might be that the signal from AP in apartment#2 is better and he'll connect to this one.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
So what we'd do with authentication i.e. EAP-PEAP username/password.&lt;BR /&gt;
A C5210 supports up to 256 topologies and 1024 roles and you need at least two for redundancy.&lt;BR /&gt;
Set up a topolgy/VLAN for every apartment and also a role per apartment.&lt;BR /&gt;
Client#1 of apartment#1 connects to the AP with username/pw and get's the role-apartment#1 back from the NAC (or RADIUS).&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
In that case you've the apartments isolated but clients from the same apartment could transmit data to each other and you only need a controller pair for it.&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;
-Ron</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:14:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46221#M4198</guid>
      <dc:creator>Ronald_Dvorak</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-21T15:14:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>RE: Apartment block deployment,</title>
      <link>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46222#M4199</link>
      <description>Thanks Guys. Really helpful. As we won't have a radius or NAC, i suspect authenticating as Ron suggested can't be done&lt;BR /&gt;
&lt;BR /&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2015 19:56:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.extremenetworks.com/t5/extremewireless-identifi/apartment-block-deployment/m-p/46222#M4199</guid>
      <dc:creator>Justsomebodi</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2015-07-21T19:56:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

