query regarding Wilreless Solution for SMB with SMB pro 500 switches

Unanswered Question
Aug 22nd, 2010


I have got 24 port Poe SMB pro 500 switch. Now I want to have a guest wireless access in a small office with 20 people. With this wireless access point only guest will be able to browse the internet. What would be the cheapest good solution to have this in place?

I am thinking of connecting wireless AP521 to the pro 500 switch to have the guest vlan access and configure it through CCA. Is it a valid option or should I go for the aironet solution?



I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Glenn Quesenberry Tue, 08/24/2010 - 06:52

You are on track with the AP541N in combination with your ESW switch solution.  You can configure both with the same tool (CCA) and you can also provide guest access, controller-less clustering (should you need multiple APs) and roaming (should that be a requirement now or later).  How "elegant" of a guest access solution are you looking for?  You can configure the AP541N with a RADIUS server for authentication, etc. or just configure a separate SSID/VLAN and provide guests the required credentials.

Best Regards,


MD ARMAN HOSSAIN Tue, 08/24/2010 - 16:02

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for your reply. It will be a single stand alone access point for two conference rooms only for guest access. I am planning to use either one of these Aps-

Option 1- Cisco WAP4400N Wireless-N Access Point: PoE Part No. WAP4400N


Option 2- Cisco AP 541N Wireless Access Point, Part no.AP541N-N-K9


I think option 1 will be cheaper than option 2? Am I right?



Glenn Quesenberry Wed, 08/25/2010 - 07:27


    Option 1 would be less cost, but Option 2 would allow you to manage the AP via the same tool (CCA) as you can manage the ESW switches.  Also it will allow for future wireless growth via the Clustering capabilities of the AP541N, so you may want to consider that when making your decisions.  If it's only a price based decision then you are right Option 1 is the lower price while Option 2 although higher priced provides a more robust and more easily managed solution with a path for future growth or expansion.

Also, you'll likely find that Option 2 is not that much higher in price and could be well worth the extra expense in the long run.

Best Regards,


MD ARMAN HOSSAIN Wed, 08/25/2010 - 15:51

Thanks Glenn. That’s what I thought. I am trying to convince for the option 2 solution, but it all depends on the budget.

Glenn Quesenberry Thu, 08/26/2010 - 07:07

I fully understand.  It's not always easy to convince someone who's spending the money that a little extra dollars equals a little more investment protection.  Most don't see the "network" as an investment, rather an expense.  Hard to change that paradigm.

Good luck!


This Discussion