[c-nsp] VRF-Lite Question

[Phil Mayers]

Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists wrote:
>> a client is following this topology and now wants to enable 
>> wireless access to all the users in all 3 buildings.
>> Requirement is to use the physical 2950's in the building which
>> are connected to 3550's which are connected at L3 to the core
>> 4507R. VLANs are not spanned out of one single building -
> 
> Why not use a Wireless LAN Controller? (AKA a "Unified Wireless
> Network). In that case, all WLAN traffic is tunnelled to the WLC,
> and you don't need to mess with VRF Lite, MPLS, or VLANs spanning
> the infrastructure.
> 
> See http://tinyurl.com/5zg8d

I can second this. Whilst the vlans+stp+vrflite does work for wireless, 
it has a significant administrative overhead. We've evaluated the WLC 
solution and are probably going to move our existing APs over to it.

On the minus side, Cisco charge about a hojillion dollars for something 
that's basically a big GRE terminator, so it does suck somewhat for 
pricing. You might want to investigate other vendors if this is a 
"green-field" installation (wireless-ly speaking)

The Cisco "line", which I suppose is reasonable, is that the ratio of 
operational/capital costs is so much higher for wireless that spending 
capital budget to get intelligence into the network is worthwhile. I can 
certainly vouch for running >350 heavyweight Cisco access points being a 
tedious drain on resources.

Of course it's just coincidence that they've moved to a recurrent 
licensing (and revenue-guaranteeing) model at the same time...