Wi-Fi controller redundancy, HA vs. primary, secondary

[tfsnetman]

Hello,

We are considering an Extreme wireless solution consisting of 2 x VE6120 ECC VMs set up redundantly.

Scenario:

• 2 sites with equal number of APs and clients approx. 1km apart
• 250 APs total
• 2000 clients total - staff crossing sites
• sufficient redundancy and bandwidth (dark fibre, multiple 10G links)

Based on our scenario what would be your recommendation and why:

• HA pair (active/passive)
• DHCP options specifying primary and secondary controller
• other?

While an HA active / passive setup seems to be recommended by Extreme
I am not convinced it’s a good idea having all control traffic going to the active unit which requires both units to be sized for 250+AP, etc..

Thank you,

Klaus

[tfsnetman]

Thank you Mig

and apologies for being late with this.

Cheers, Klaus

[Miguel-Angel_RO · Accepted solution]

Hi Klaus,

Here some answers:

• 

  In active active you don’t control the hosting of the APs by an XCC. In Active-Passive you can play with this to force a precedence:

• 

  Both units should be sized to be able to host all the APs in case of fail-over (upgrades, reboots, etc)

In your case (I used this also) I would configure two sites. Each site config having a preferred connection to the XCC on the same site (Active-Passive mode):

Regards

Mig