<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Cisco WLC High Availability	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/</link>
	<description>Share your knowledge!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:42:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Michel		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-1520</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 19:42:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-1520</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Check the difference between 38x 1 AP Adder Licenses or 1x new Cisco AIR-CT5508-HA-K9. I would recommend a SmartNET contract to download and update your WLCs to at least 8.2.166.0: https://software.cisco.com/download/release.html?mdfid=282600534&amp;softwareid=280926587&amp;release=8.2.166.0&amp;rellifecycle=ED&amp;relind=AVAILABLE&amp;reltype=all]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Check the difference between 38x 1 AP Adder Licenses or 1x new Cisco AIR-CT5508-HA-K9. I would recommend a SmartNET contract to download and update your WLCs to at least 8.2.166.0: <a href="https://software.cisco.com/download/release.html?mdfid=282600534&#038;softwareid=280926587&#038;release=8.2.166.0&#038;rellifecycle=ED&#038;relind=AVAILABLE&#038;reltype=all" rel="nofollow ugc">https://software.cisco.com/download/release.html?mdfid=282600534&#038;softwareid=280926587&#038;release=8.2.166.0&#038;rellifecycle=ED&#038;relind=AVAILABLE&#038;reltype=all</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ciccio		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-1517</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ciccio]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:18:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-1517</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Thanks a lot Michel, really .... do you thing is cheaper to buy a new license ??
What kind of license ??? i had understood that was possible convert a 50 AP license ( tha i must will buy ....)  in a HA SKU license ...
thanks again ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks a lot Michel, really &#8230;. do you thing is cheaper to buy a new license ??<br />
What kind of license ??? i had understood that was possible convert a 50 AP license ( tha i must will buy &#8230;.)  in a HA SKU license &#8230;<br />
thanks again &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michel		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-1516</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 14:03:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-1516</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Ciccio,


the second one needs at least 50 AP licenses to convert to a HA SKU unit. I think rebuying a HA SKU 5508 directly will be cheaper but check it first.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ciccio,</p>
<p>the second one needs at least 50 AP licenses to convert to a HA SKU unit. I think rebuying a HA SKU 5508 directly will be cheaper but check it first.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ciccio		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-1515</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ciccio]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:38:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-1515</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hi Michael,

Thanks for the article.

I have a this scenario:  
- 2 Cisco WLC 5508 
- one with  100 AP Licence and Sw 8.0.115
- one with 12 AP licence and SW 8.0.135
is possible HA  ?? and how i do ??
thanks ....]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Michael,</p>
<p>Thanks for the article.</p>
<p>I have a this scenario:<br />
&#8211; 2 Cisco WLC 5508<br />
&#8211; one with  100 AP Licence and Sw 8.0.115<br />
&#8211; one with 12 AP licence and SW 8.0.135<br />
is possible HA  ?? and how i do ??<br />
thanks &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Cisco WLC HA with 2504 series &#8211; Network Guy		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-1043</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cisco WLC HA with 2504 series &#8211; Network Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-1043</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] already posted a tutorial about Cisco WLC HA with 5500er series but I want to show you how to configure an N+1 high availability system with 2504 WLC from Cisco. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] already posted a tutorial about Cisco WLC HA with 5500er series but I want to show you how to configure an N+1 high availability system with 2504 WLC from Cisco. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Hannu		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-625</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hannu]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-625</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-395&quot;&gt;nakamurra&lt;/a&gt;.

I&#039;ve had this happen when the primary lost a static route that we had made for service port access. The secondary still had the same route. Added the route and everything was back to normal.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-395">nakamurra</a>.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had this happen when the primary lost a static route that we had made for service port access. The secondary still had the same route. Added the route and everything was back to normal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michel		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-597</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 15:57:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-597</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[To place them on two locations for example. Or you don&#039;t trust the ha system and have two WLCs so you can bring all APs to unit 2 and can update unit 1 without problems.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To place them on two locations for example. Or you don&#8217;t trust the ha system and have two WLCs so you can bring all APs to unit 2 and can update unit 1 without problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Adi		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-596</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:35:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-596</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I understand. but for this question ?


And what is the reason to buy 2x controllers with 50 ap on each ? For what ?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I understand. but for this question ?</p>
<p>And what is the reason to buy 2x controllers with 50 ap on each ? For what ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michel		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-595</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 12:31:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-595</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-594&quot;&gt;Adi&lt;/a&gt;.

Not really, you can point the first half of your APs to the first controller and the second one handles the others. You can place two standalone controllers in different locations (I had a customer with two WLCs placed in different towns). A HA cluster needs to be in one place (because the dedicated link needs jumbo frames between them).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-594">Adi</a>.</p>
<p>Not really, you can point the first half of your APs to the first controller and the second one handles the others. You can place two standalone controllers in different locations (I had a customer with two WLCs placed in different towns). A HA cluster needs to be in one place (because the dedicated link needs jumbo frames between them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Adi		</title>
		<link>https://networkguy.de/cisco-wlc-high-availability/#comment-594</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adi]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 11:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://networkguy.de/?p=558#comment-594</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For load balancing perhaps ?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For load balancing perhaps ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
