WLC4402 - Slow client Performance

Unanswered Question

Having replaced 44 Dlink APs with a 4402 and 1252 A/B/N APs within an educational environment, I find myself with a slower wireless network than before (I say slow, impossibly slow to the point of failure)

Where as 1 Dlink AP would happily take 15+ clients and let them all logon together the Cisco system is taking up to 30 minutes to log the users on.

Another symptom is staff who used to have large off-line folders to sync (1Gb+) which admittedly would take hours on the Dlink network now can not sync at all.

The config is pretty basic, actually only wep enabled on vlan1 at the moment.

I currently have all the APs going through 1 vlan / one Gb port on the 4402 and I have read the note suggestions of no more than 25 APs per Gb port but the current client load on the network is minimal (currentl 70)

Can anyone think of anything obvious, or is it really Im pushing the boundaries of only using 1 x Gb port.

I could under it being slow, but worse than a bunch of DWL7000s? I can't believe that.



I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
ericgarnel Wed, 04/09/2008 - 05:39

Using the 2nd port would definitely be better.

What are some of the other settings for the APs?

basic-rate, protocols, etc.

Also, what are the port speeds and settings on the switches that connect to the 1252s?

The switchport should be in access mode and in the same vlan as the management & ap-management interfaces.

Are you letting the WLC control the power and channels automagically or on demand?

Have you performed a site survey post upgrade? if so, what are you seeing in the way of signal, noise, snr and overlap.

Thanks for your message.

Im not sure if this is the done thing but Ive attached the config. Is this helpful, or useless?

Power is set to auto, every 600 seconds.

Switches port settings Id have to check. but they are all attched to 375OPOE's

I see 1 or 2 aps tipping over the noise thresholds for a few seconds at a time but nothing nasty.

ericgarnel Wed, 04/09/2008 - 08:48

That is hard to read!

Are the user wlans pulling the 172.x addresses as well? You may want to consider changing that. Also, what 802.11 are you using, b/g/a/n?

Also, there are a lot of resolved caveats in


This Discussion



Trending Topics: Other Wireless Mobility

client could not be authenticated
Network Analysis Module (NAM) Products
Cisco 6500 nam
reason 440 driver failure
Cisco password cracker
Cisco Wireless mode