Aggressive load balancing

Unanswered Question
May 28th, 2009
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Is there a way to limit the total number of client on and ap?


We have a client with a small school using the 526 controller.


Aggressive load balancing enabled but we cannot change the window size, not that it matters a great deal as the clients seem to ignore reason 17 code anyway?


Should


config advanced 802.11b profile clients global


set a hard limit on the number of clients that can associate to and ap?


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Loading.
dancampb Thu, 05/28/2009 - 11:18
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Currently there isn't a way to limit the number of associations per AP in an controller environment. Aggressive load balancing tries to encourage a client to associate to a less loaded AP but it won't stop the client from associating.

Peter Nugent Thu, 05/28/2009 - 12:34
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Thanks very much for that its as I thought, is there a way to debug to ensure we are getting reason code 17 out and prove its the client not the AP?

weterry Fri, 05/29/2009 - 05:00
User Badges:
  • Silver, 250 points or more

your other post about 'debug client' I believe is showing you the status 17. You'll see something like 'sending assoc response..... (status 17)' in the debug client.

Peter Nugent Fri, 05/29/2009 - 06:05
User Badges:
  • Cisco Employee,

Many thanks the debug client is a different issue but we will see what we get

George Stefanick Fri, 05/29/2009 - 09:30
User Badges:
  • Purple, 4500 points or more
  • Community Spotlight Award,

    Best Publication, October 2015

You want to be careful with Aggressive load balance on your WLC, If you have sensitive applications. You may experience issues. All VOIP deployments, ALB is always recommended to be disable.



dennischolmes Fri, 05/29/2009 - 16:59
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

Aggressive load balancing breaks applications that are "dropped packet" sensitive as there is a momentary disconnect due to the use of deauth packets to force the client to a less crowded AP. I don't suggest using it. If you are having issues with too many clients per AP or more that 60 clients (20 per channel in b/g) I would strongly suggest looking at moving to 5ghz to allow for multiple APs covering the area with less channel reutilization. This will result in a larger number of clients being able to associate with the least amount of cochannel interference.

Actions

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