Do we still have the same WAN restraints on monitor mode APs as we do with regular APs and H-REAP APs? That is, do we require a 100ms or better RTD between the controller and a monitor mode AP?
A. No, monitor mode AP does not have the 100 ms restriction because there is no client association, which is the reason for the restriction. The 100 ms latency limitation was created out of varied, and often stringent, client authorization requirements, which is why both local mode and H-REAP APs have identical latency limitations. Obviously, monitor mode APs do not have the same client limitations. Q. My WLC version is 3.2. It is configured for Layer 3 Lightweight Access Point Protocol (LWAPP). The MTU for the network between this WLC and my lightweight access point (LAP) is configured as 900 bytes. My LWAPP AP is unable to join this WLC. What can be the reason for this? A. The MTU configured in your scenario is 900 bytes. But an LWAPP Join request is larger than 1500 bytes. So, here LWAPP requires a fragment of the LWAPP Join request. The logic for all LWAPP APs is that the size of the first fragment is 1500 bytes (includes IP and UDP header) and the second fragment is 54 bytes (incl
A. No, monitor mode AP does not have the 100 msec restriction because there is no client association, the reason for restriction. The 100ms latency limitation was born out of varied, and often stringent, client authorization requirements, which is why both local mode and H-REAP APs have identical latency limitations. Obviously, monitor mode APs do not have the same client limitations.
Related Questions
- Do we still have the same WAN restraints on monitor mode APs as we do with regular APs and H-REAP APs? That is, do we require a 100ms or better RTD between the controller and a monitor mode AP?
- Fiberglass or gel-coat tubs require a different type preparation but once completed are just as durable as regular bathtubs. Q: Does the process smell bad?
- Do ISO Standards require regular Internal and External Audits?
