Q: 7
A customer has a single anchor WLC named Anchor A. Anchor A is in a DMZ and provides guest access. The customer wants to deploy an additional anchor controller named Anchor B to provide redundancy if Anchor A fails. Which design approach should be taken for the guest WLAN priority on the foreign WLC for each anchor WLC?
Options
Discussion
D , lower number = higher priority so set Anchor A to 1 and Anchor B to 3.
D is the way I'd set it up for pure redundancy. Lower number is higher priority, so Anchor A gets 1 (primary) and Anchor B gets 3 (secondary). That's straight from Cisco docs on anchor WLC failover, pretty sure that's how most people do it.
D for redundancy setup. Lower number means higher priority, so primary Anchor A should be 1, backup Anchor B as 3. I think that's what Cisco recommends for failover rather than load balancing. Disagree?
Tricky, since a lot of configs get tripped up by anchor priorities. D
Seriously Cisco, why is anchor controller priority so backwards? Picking D here because lower number means primary (Anchor A at 1), Anchor B at 3 for backup. That matches redundant guest design docs, but let me know if I missed a twist.
Option D
C or D
Not totally sure because both options have valid use cases, but since it's for redundancy only (not load balancing), maybe D fits better here. Anyone else think otherwise?
Not totally sure because both options have valid use cases, but since it's for redundancy only (not load balancing), maybe D fits better here. Anyone else think otherwise?
C is tempting if you want both anchors active but for pure failover, D is correct. The moment you need load balancing, that's when C makes sense instead.
Its D for redundancy since priority 1 is primary and 3 is backup, pretty sure that's the Cisco way.
Nah, it's D. C looks tempting but that's how you'd set it for load balancing, not pure redundancy like the question asks.
Be respectful. No spam.
