MX67W SSIDs in HA (warm spare)

[Alberto_Araujo]

Hi!

I'm thinking in change our deployments and add a second MX in Active-Pasive HA.

I've been reading the docs and found that the DHCP server is synchronized through the HA, but couldn't find anything related to the Wifi SSIDs.

I assume that the settings in both MXs are the same, same SSIDs, same DHCP, same FW rules, ...., I mean, the config is replicated between both MXs, so I'd like to know what happens when both MXs are working (even in an Active-Pasive scenario), are the Wifi radio ON on both MXs at the same time? Or the Pasive MX turns off the radio?.

Thanks....

Cheers 🙂

[Nash]

If you've reached a point where you need a pair of firewalls, is there a specific reason why you wouldn't move to separate APs as well?

From a performance aspect, I'd personally recommend separate AP(s) and disable SSIDs on the firewalls. The APs have much nicer wireless bells and whistles.

[MerakiDave · Accepted solution]

@Alberto_Araujo only one MX-W appliance would be active (including serving wireless clients) at any given time.  And as @Nash mentioned, if you were looking to simply create an HA pair of MX appliances, that's fine.  But if you were looking to expand the wireless coverage, you couldn't do that by adding a 2nd MX-W appliance and creating an HA pair.  To expand the wireless coverage, I would turn off the wireless on the MX-W and deploy a pair of APs.  I would not recommend adding an AP to an MX-W network, that would give you a split wireless configuration, it would be like managing two separate wireless networks, one via the MX-W and the other on the AP, so better to simply use 2 APs.

[Nash]

---

@MerakiDave wrote:

To expand the wireless coverage, I would turn off the wireless on the MX-W and deploy a pair of APs.  I would not recommend adding an AP to an MX-W network, that would give you a split wireless configuration, it would be like managing two separate wireless networks, one via the MX-W and the other on the AP, so better to simply use 2 APs.

---

Yeeeep, I have clients who refuse to buy an additional AP, so 2/3 of their office is on actual APs, 1/3 is on the MX-W's SSID.

Then they complain about bad performance when, say, walking around the office, because it's two wireless networks that they transition between. It's a bad scene! Either MX + APs, or if you have to, an MX-W. Not both.

[Alberto_Araujo]

HI.

Thanks for your confirmation about the behavior, that's what i've figured.

In deed, we want to create a HA pair of MX, not expand wireless.

Thank you... Cheers 🙂

[Alberto_Araujo]

Hi.

The reason is that we're offering this solution to our customers as a pack, just one or two MXs but without MRs.

Althought the best solution should be the addition of new MRs, our main goal is the failover of the MX, not the WiFI.

Of course, we are taking this scenario in consideration, because we're sure that some customers will pay the difference, but not every customer, and that's why we want to know the behavior of the MX in this "cheaper" scenario.

Thanks 🙂