Aggressive load balancing - doco default

The doco. Command Reference for v4.0 says,
config load-balancing
is Enabled by default.
I think this is wrong.
WiSM v4.0.179.8

Tweak your RF. You need to adjust the TX power and the data rates. The reason you have one AP with 9 clients is probably because that AP has the lowest TX power setting like 7-8. Make each AP the same TX power level, depending on how many AP's and how big the room is. You will need to play around with this and the data rates to achieve what you want.
Here is a guide to look at too
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/cisco_wlan_design_guide.pdf
Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

Similar Messages

WLC - Aggressive Load Balancing?

Hello,
The Wirless LAN Network bulit is as follows -
1. 1 x 4404 WLC
2. 40 x LWAPP 1131AG Access Points
3. Windows Clients used by the Laptop Clients.
4. Only one Wireless VLAN across the Capmus network - hence AP's, WLC & Clients are all in one VLAN / IP Subnet.
5. No Access Point Group is created.
6. Aggressive Load Balancing is enabled allowing 15 Clients as max connection per Access Point.
Problem facing -
1. Tried configuring the Aggressive Loadbalancing allowing only 2 x Clients per AP. But noticed that the 3rd Client connecting to the same AP as of the previous 2 Clients have connected. 3rd client is not associating to a different AP which is nearby.
Please can one help me, if i'm configuring & testing Aggressive Load Balancing in the right way!
Regards,
Keshava Raju

AMR is on target. In fact I just completed 20 hours worth of testing with variuos clients with ALB for a white paper I am doing. Code 17 isnt honored by most clients and is only sent 1 time from the AP. The clients will contiue to attempt to associate to the AP and the AP will allow them on.
Here is a peek of my white paper "still in draft"
WLC - Cisco WLC Aggressive Load Balancing; What is it and where did it go in 6.0!
I've spent the majority of my WLC experience at code level 4.2. Not by choice really, more
based on the fact that 4.2 is pretty darn stable and it is the only safe harbor to date for the Cisco WLC. Healthcare and Enterprise enviroments are typically slow to move on upgrades, especially when things are operating fine.
Since my latest project involves the deployment of hundreds of Cisco 1142s @ location grade, it required that I move to later code to support the 1142 access points. After much research, conversations with our
local Cisco Wireless SE, conversation with peers at other healthcare organizations, and direct contact with the aware team I had decided that 6.0.188.0 was a release that was of great interest.
As I start to get fimilar with the new code I am starting to see that things got moved around a little. One of the items is Aggressive Load Balancing. If you aren't fimilar with Aggressive Load Balancing (ALB) you definitly need to be and let me share why.
First lets look at what ALB is and how it works and then we will dive into the differences between the 4.2 code and the new options 6.0 gives us. ALB when enabled, allows the Cisco WLC to load balance wireless clients on access points that are joined to the same controller. “Key word here – same controller”. You can configure the load balancing window globally in the controller. What is the load balancing window you ask? Well is the maximum number of clients that should be allowed on the access point BEFORE it will start to load balance.
Lets assume for a moment you have an access point with 5 clients already attached. When client #6 sends association request to the access point the access point will kindly respond with an associaton response frame with the reason code of 17. The wireless client will see reason code 17 in the association response and will kindly find other access points to associate with. However, some devices will ignore this frame and yet still continue to try and associate to the access point. Note: The Cisco WLC will ONLY send 1 reassociation frame with a reason code of 17. It doesn’t flood the medium / client with multiple frames.
Its up to the client to honor this information and move on. But I can tell you from my experience and testing this isn’t always the case.
By default, 4.2 and 6.x both have a load balancing window of (5). Lets look at an example.
The window setting controls when aggressive load−balancing starts. With a window setting of five, for
example, all clients after the sixth client are load−balanced.
I know, what is the reason code talk, right. Lets cover this as well. If you dive into the 802.11 frames you will see “Reason Codes”. When a client sees the reason code of “17”, it indicates to the client that the access point is busy and the client should look else where.
yada yada yada
I will post the complete paper on my site: my80211.com in the next week or so ...

Aggressive Load Balancing = unstable network

Last week we upgraded 26 WLCs 4400 controllers from version 5.2.178 to version 6.0.188.0/6.0.196.0.
Two days after the upgrade, IT-administrators had reported problems with 15 of the WLCs.
The symptoms was:
- Problems conntecting to SSIDs
- Unstable network when connected
- Clients didnt get a IP-adress
- Unstable signal strength
After some troubleshooting, it turned out "Aggressive load-balancing" was enabled on the WLCs having these problems.
Output from one WLC:
(Cisco Controller) >show load-balancing
Aggressive Load Balancing........................ Enabled
Aggressive Load Balancing Window................. 0 clients
Aggressive Load Balancing Denial Count........... 3
Statistics
Total Denied Count............................... 5873 clients
Total Denial Sent................................ 14067 messages
Exceeded Denial Max Limit Count.................. 2924 times
None 5G Candidate Count.......................... 8215 times
None 2.4G Candidate Count........................ 2331 times
Yesterday we ran this command on these WLCs:
config load-balancing aggressive disable
..and the problems now seem to have dissappeared.
Aggressive load-balancing is disabled as default in the newest versions of WLC software, but we have upgraded since version 4.0.155.5 (where I think this was enabled as default), and I guess this setting was enabled because of that.
Some info from cisco.com about aggressive load balancing:
Aggressive load-balancing works at the association phase. If enabled and the conditions to load-balance are met, when a wireless client attempts to associate to a LAP, association response frames are sent to the client with an 802.11 response packet that includes status code 17. This code indicates that the AP is too busy to accept any more associations.
It is the responsibility of the client to honor, process or discard that association response frame with reason code 17. Some clients ignore it, even though it is part of the 802.11 specification. The standard dictates that the client driver must look for another AP to connect to since it receives a "busy" message from the first AP it tries. Many clients do not do this and send the association request again. The client in question is allowed on to the wireless network upon subsequent attempts to associate.
Just wanted to post this in case others are experiencing problems like we did

Tweak your RF. You need to adjust the TX power and the data rates. The reason you have one AP with 9 clients is probably because that AP has the lowest TX power setting like 7-8. Make each AP the same TX power level, depending on how many AP's and how big the room is. You will need to play around with this and the data rates to achieve what you want.
Here is a guide to look at too
http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/education/cisco_wlan_design_guide.pdf
Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

WLC Voice Audit - Aggressive Load Balancing on WLAN not disabled

I am running v6.0.196 on 2 WLCs. Aggressive Load Balancing is disabled globally via WCS. (Configure / Controller / General / Aggressive Load Balancing = Disabled). When running the Voice Audit Tool against the VoWLAN, I receive the following:
"Aggressive Load Balancing on WLAN not Disabled"
I am unable locate the command or the screen to actually disable this on an individual WLAN. Is this perhaps a code glitch?
-Robert

This is not available on the WCS. I was able to locate this on the individual WLCs.
But thanks for pointing me where to look nonetheless!
-Robert

Aggressive Load-balancing feasible?

I am experiencing some issues with laptops in a lab not being able to associate properly.
I'm in a university environment with 132 APs at the current time.
The lab in question is in a building with 6 APs total: 4 on the 2nd floor, 2 on the 1st floor. The lab itself is located on the 2nd floor close to the central point of the 4 APs. They plan to use 30 laptops at once via wireless.
There are also many other areas on campus that have a focused load (common student areas for example).
For the lab specifically, would this be a viable condition to enable load-balancing? I'm thinking a client window of 10 or 12 should work.
All 6 APs can see each other, and all the 2nd floor APs can see at least 3 other APs with -70dBm or more (stronger).
My current threshold is set to -65dBm, but I will be changing that to -70 to meet current recommendations.
Also, what is considered 'high density' in terms of LWAPP deployments? Is there a certain number of 'visible' APs to aim fo r(from each AP's point of view)?
Finally, will changing the threshold and enabling load-balancing require controller reboots, or can I just apply them on the fly?
Thanks.
Edit: My WLCs (1x WiSM blade) are on version 4.2.61.0.

You can enable aggressive load balancing and change the thresholds on the fly. These will not require you to reboot the wlc. High density can vary depending on the applications the users are using. Cisco recommends around 15 to 20 per access point, but that is not a hard number. Aggressive load balancing can help or not help, it is something you have to enable and see how the users are affected by the change.

Aggressive load balancing

hi there,
i am having problems with implementing load balancing successfully. its really churing my head. Can the genious people out here shed me some light on aggressive load balancing. How successful is load balancing? I have not been able to block clients connecting to a light weight AP when it exceeds the maximum clients allowed. Please help

Hi Solomon,
Have a look at this recent thread. There are some excellent
answers which detail this process
https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/3121939#3121939
Cheers!
Rob
Please support CSC Helps Haiti
https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-8895
https://supportforums.cisco.com/docs/DOC-8727

Aggressive Load Balancing Per SSI

Hey team,
I was looking through some docs but couldn't find out "WHEN" aggressive load balancing would be available per SSID on a WLC. Does anyone have any feedback on this particular topic? We have some legacy clients and we want to segregate them via WLAN and have the feature available when necessary without supplicants etc.
Thanks in advance!
bigjess

Hi bigjess,
Available as of 6.0.188.0 with 6.0.196.0 being the current maintenance release.
See http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/controller/release/notes/crn6_0_188.html#wp598887
-Matt

How can I debug Aggressive Load Balancing on the WLC ?

Hello Cisco-Experts,
I'm looking for the command on the Cisco WLC to debug Aggressive Load-Balancing.
There is a nice document, ID 107457 describing this feature, but it lacks the command.
Please investigate and help me and maybe improve YOur documentations.
Thanks in advance
Winfried

Hello NetPros,
I have disabled now "Agressive Load Balancing" now on the WLC. To my surprise, still Load-balancing packets are received from our HREAP-APs via a WAN-Link on the central WLC.
Here is an example:
Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data stored for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) new saved RS
SI (A -128, B -53), SNR 41, inUse 1, [rcvd RSSI (A -128, B -54), SNR 40]
Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data rcvd for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) with RSSI (A -
128, B -55), SNR 42
Tue Jan 13 15:35:59 2009: 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e LBS data stored for Mobile 00:1c:bf:4a:3f:2e from AP 00:23:5d:0e:e9:e0(0) new saved RS
SI (A -128, B -54), SNR 41, inUse 1, [rcvd RSSI (A -128, B -55), SNR 42]
It is remarkable that the MAC-addresses of many of the WLAN-clients do not belong to our company and packets are send via a WAN-link.
Why do I see these packets while load-balancing is disabled ?
How is this working ?
Thank You for any explanation.
Winfried

What does per Wlan Band select and load balancing do ?

Good morning.....We recently upgraded our controllers from 4.2.185 to 6.0.188 and have noticed many clients having connectivity issues. We have Aggressive load balancing turned off globally but have noticed that band select and load balancing are enabled on the
Wlan. Are these settings mutually exclusive or do they do the same thing ? Does the Wlan setting override the default ? We have noticed that there is
output doing "debug dot11 load-balancing"
Thanx.....Dave

I believe we never had load balancing turned on when running 5.2 code. We jumped from 5.2 to 6.x temporarily and then to 7.0 within a 30 day time frame this summer. We're a large university and we had very few users on WiFi during that time.
The Macintosh laptops are having nothing but trouble since school began, and I have gone over everything and found that band select is turned on as well as load balancing. Since band select didn't exist in 5.2 (I believe) I know it wasn't on. As for load balancing, I don't believe it was on, and I discovered it was turned on when recently reviewing our configs.
The Macintosh laptops have been debugged and our Mac gurus tell us they're getting a message that equates to "the AP is busy, or the AP is full". This leads me to believe that load balancing got turned on during the upgrade and we didn't notice, which caused the Macintoshes to have issues.
We don't have any VoWiFi clients so we don't have to support them, and we don't officially support smartphones, either.
I turned off load balancing and will see how it goes....
Thanks!

WLC Load Balancing Threshold

I am trying to understand how the load balancing threshold is calculated but I am finding conflicting information, even withing Cisco's own documentation. I would be grateful if anyone could help.
Cisco's latest Wireless LAN Controller Configuration Guide for software release 7.0.116.0 (April 2011) contains the following information for configuring Wireless > Advanced > Load Balancing Page (emphasis mine):
In the Client Window Size text box, enter a value between 1 and 20. The window size becomes part of the algorithm that determines whether an access point is too heavily loaded to accept more client associations:
load-balancing window + client associations on AP with highest load = load-balancing threshold
In the group of access points accessible to a client device, each access point has a different number of client associations. The access point with the lowest number of clients has the lightest load. The client window size plus the number of clients on the access point with the lightest load forms the threshold. Access points with more client associations than this threshold is considered busy, and clients can associate only to access points with client counts lower than the threshold.
Option 1
The formula shown is correct (load-balancing window + client associations on AP with highest load = load-balancing threshold). If so, this would mean that if you had a window size of 5 and the AP with the highest load at the time of calculation was 15, the threshold would be 18. However, as no APs have 18 associations then this threshold would never be reached. Even if an AP reach 18 associations, the next client trying to associate would trigger another calculation for the threshold which would be 21 (3 + 18) and so still, this threshold would never be hit.
Option 2
The description in the paragraph below is correct (The access point with the lowest number of clients has the lightest load. The client window size plus the number of clients on the access point with the lightest load forms the threshold). This sounds much more sensible to me. In this case, the window size was 3 and the AP with the lowest number of associations already had 7 clients associated, the load balancing threshold would be 10 i.e. no load balancing would occur until a client tried to associate with an AP which already had at least 10 clients associated.
Option 3
I have seen many descriptions on forums etc of the load balancing threshold being essentially the Client window size, i.e. if the client window size is 3 then load balancing will kick in when a client tries to associate to an AP with at least 3 clients already associated. This doesnt match the above documentation unless the AP with the least number of clients associated doesnt have any associated clients i.e. 0 clients.
Questions
I think Option 2 is the correct description of load balancing and the formula given stating use of the AP with the highest load is a typo (albeit still not corrected in the latest documentation). Am I correct?
The problem with using the option 2 method of calculating the load threshold is that you will be unnecessarily performing load balancing in an environment where some of your APs do actually have zero clients associated, unless you set the window size to somehing close to 10.
I read here http://www.perihel.at/wlan/wlan-wlc.html#aggressive-load-balancing that when calculating the load threshold, it only accounts for the 8 'best' APs for a given client. In other words, if you have 60 APs on your campus but only 20 are visible to the client, the controller will only perform its load threshold calculations bases on the 8 APs which have the best signal to the client. This would ,ake sense as there is no point setting a load threshold based on the lightest loaded AP which is not even within 'reach' of the client. Is this correct as I can not find any other documentation which supports this?
Thanks in advance for your help with this.

Interesting, the config guide contradicts itself in the same paragraph.....    I thought maybe we had two different documents with different explanations. I don't see any open documentation bugs asking to correct this, but I swear I've heard discussion on this in the past.......
First off: Option #3 was the "old way". I think it changed in 6.0.    If you had a threshold of 5, then as soon as you had 5 clients on an AP it would reject the association (3 times and then let them on the 4th attempt). Now its a sliding window/scale.
Option #1 I think is completely wrong. As you described, how in the world would you ever surpass the threshold if the highest AP + the window is what you have to beat to load-balance....?    RIght, that just doesn't make any sense to me.....
Option #2, the way you explain it is correct to my understanding...
Your question #3 is also correct (not sure if it is Top 8 or based on an RSSI threshold though.)
The idea is that you don't want some AP in a remote office with 0 clients being your starting point.   So I believe that it is based on the top X candidate for your client.    If your client has 4 viable candidates (lets just say -70 or better), and one of those APs has 5 clients and the rest have 15, I'd expect loadbalancing to try to get you to the 5 client AP if your window size was ~10...... something like that anyhow...

Wireless clients load balancing on the APs on WLC 4404

Hi Experts,
I'm just wondering if the WLC 4404 with firmware 4.2.207.0 can load balance the wireless clients on different WAPs. Let's say that an AP is already handling 15 Wireless devices. When the 16th is trying to join, the controller somehow puts it on another nearby AP, even the signal from this AP is weaker. I heard the similar feature on other Wireless solution vendors. I'm just wondering if Cisco has the similar feature or not.
Thanks!

Yes it is known as aggressive load balancing sending a code 17 making the wireless client to loook at another nearby AP.
here it is the documentation:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6366/products_tech_note09186a00809c2fc3.shtml

LWAPP-3-REPLAY_ERR and load balancing issue

Guys, I was trying to troubleshoot this error in my WLC
Nov 24 00:30:01 wlc1: *spamApTask5: Nov 24 00:30:01.883: #LWAPP-3-REPLAY_ERR: spam_lrad.c:35169 The system has received replay error on slot 0, WLAN ID 1, count 1 from AP 08:d0:9f:23:4f:e0
I did some search and I was trying to check if there was any replay attack in the network but I don't know where to start and kept searching for other reasons, and got an anwser in other blog. And this issue could be related to a Load-balancing config.
Eventhough,I've got Load-Balancing disable in all my WLAN's but still got these counters. How can I check if those are false positives?
(wlc-1) >show load-balancing
Aggressive Load Balancing........................ per WLAN enabling
Aggressive Load Balancing Window................. 10 clients
Aggressive Load Balancing Denial Count........... 3
Statistics
Total Denied Count............................... 17682 clients
Total Denial Sent................................ 30891 messages
Exceeded Denial Max Limit Count.................. 5032 times
None 5G Candidate Count.......................... 206270 times
None 2.4G Candidate Count........................ 5040 times
In the GUI the Load-Balancing is DISABLED per WLAN.

yes, even I've upgraded my entire campus to 1702i and 2702i lightweight AP's with 8.0.115.0 code in my WLC I still got huge amount of LWAPP Replay Erros, please check the summuary of erros during yesterday..
     14 APF-1-CONFLICT_IN_ASS_REQ: apf_80211.c
     14 APF-3-CHECK_EXT_SUPP_RATES_FAILED: apf_utils.c
     14 APF-3-CHECK_SUPP_RATES_FAILED: apf_utils.c
     15 APF-3-NO_FRAMED_IP_ADDRESS: apf_radius.c
    638 APF-3-VALIDATE_DOT11i_CIPHERS_FAILED: apf_rsn_utils.c
    103 DOT1X-3-AAA_AUTH_SEND_FAIL: 1x_aaa.c
   2427 DOT1X-3-ABORT_AUTH: 1x_bauth_sm.c
     55 DOT1X-3-AUTHKEY_TX_TRANS_ERR: 1x_kxsm.c
     20 DOT1X-3-CLIENT_NOT_FOUND: dot1x_msg_task.c
   1365 DOT1X-3-INVALID_REPLAY_CTR: 1x_eapkey.c
     69 DOT1X-3-INVALID_WPA_KEY_MSG: 1x_eapkey.c
    296 DOT1X-3-INVALID_WPA_KEY_MSG_STATE: 1x_eapkey.c
      2 DOT1X-3-INVALID_WPA_KEY_STATE: 1x_eapkey.c
    923 DOT1X-3-WPA_SEND_STATE_ERR: 1x_kxsm.c
      7 DTL-3-ARP_CLIENT_IP_DUPLICATED: dtl_arp.c
      2 IPV6-3-CREATE_BINDING_FAILED: ipv6_net.c
      2 IPV6-3-ORPHAN_ADDR_LEARNING_FAILED: ipv6_net.c
      2 LOG-3-Q_IND: 1x_eapkey.c
      3 LOG-3-Q_IND: rrmChanUtils.c
     22 LOG-3-Q_IND: spam_lrad.c
   5120 LWAPP-3-REPLAY_ERR: spam_lrad.c
      2 LWAPP-3-VENDOR_PLD_VALIDATE_ERR: spam_lrad.c
      3 RRM-3-RRM_LOGMSG: rrmChanUtils.c
    615 RRM-3-RRM_LOGMSG: rrmLrad.c
      2 SISF-3-INTERNAL: sisf_shim_utils.c

RAC load balancing advice

Hi guys,
I’m in process of creating services for our RAC databases to ensure the system resources are efficiently utilized. Below is some info about my environment.
2 node rac. 7 databases ,V11.2 and 10.2 ,system users: developers, testers
Goal: to distribute the load as much as possible no prioritization is needed and all users have same SLA.
I’m thinking of having one service for every database with following characteristics:
Connection load balancing:=long (default)
DBMS_SERVICE.GOAL=GOAL_THROUGHPUT
Preferred instances: node1, node2
Is thats the most efficient way of doing it?
thanks

user9198889 wrote:
have seen people having around 20 db's across massive 2node rac. Sorry - I'm hard pressed to call 2 nodes, massive. :-)
i guess the main reason behind this is oracle licensing fee, they cant afford having 20 smaller set of physical rac.... maybe its the hardware and maintenance cost too. I will dispute all those points. Especially the hardware cost side - as one wants the "+most bang for a buck+" from one's h/w investment. This can only be achieved by correctly utilising the h/w. Running multiple database instances on a single h/w platform like that, is everything but effectively utilising the h/w.
To clear my doubt about the load balancing, do you approve service configuration which I mentioned above? Or that there are still better ways of distributing the load. I would need some very sound and very valid reasons for running 2 database instances on a single server, never mind running multiple RAC database instances on the same set of servers.
If the intention is something along the lines of a RAC cloud - let's say 32 servers as a single cluster with Oracle RAC installed on each. Running 10 distinct RAC databases. 1 instance per server. And have the ability to distribute the available cluster nodes between cluster databases (e.g. 12 instances for RAC DB1 and 2 instances each for RAC DB2 to DB10, with the ability to reduce DB1 to 5 instances and allocate those nodes to another instance, etc).
That is by far a more sensible approach than run multiple RAC instances per single cluster node.
PS: if i was to add 3rd node to my cluster, i wouldnt have 3 smaller SGA's per every db, i would go for 2 large 2sgas per every db, for exmaple
DB1 runs on node1,node2
DB2 runs on node2,node3
DB3 runs on node3,node1 This is still wrong. A single SGA is better ito scalability and performance than 2 SGAs.
H/w is also cheap. The typical cost of a blade server for a cluster ranges from $2,000 to $8,000 - depending on how many CPUs and cores and memory you want per blade server.
If you cost the cluster ito performance and capability, then it will be cheaper adding another server blade to the cluster, than to create another RAC instance to be run on an existing cluster, forcing blade servers to run multiple instances each.
RAC architecture is scaling a single database across multiple servers. That is it. As simple as that.
RAC architecture is not about using a single server and scaling multiple databases on it.
So think carefully of WHY you want to do this.. as there are more than likely not one sound technical reason to justify this - which means you need exceedingly good business/environment reasons for violating the basic concept of RAC scalability.

Controller Load Balancing

I have a high school that has a computer lab with 32 laptops. Also in the area are about 5 other teacher laptops. There are approximately 3 AP's in the vicinity within -72. The controller is running 4.0.179 using RRM. It seems that the computer lab is attaching to one AP only causing association and authentication failures. I can see, at one time, 28 clients on one AP, and it looks like load balancing is not functioning. I've applied the config load-balancing window 15 command with no luck, all though I have a feeling that RRM is controlling the load balancing and that command wasn't going to do much anyway. I've heard bad things about Aggressive Load Balancing so I am hesitant to turn it on.
Is there a setting I'm missing here? Or would a code upgrade solve this issue?

Im not going to say there is not a way using code, but I will stand on John Chambers coffee table and tell him the only way to do this is via physical load balancing.
This requires smaller cells using data rates no lower than 11mbps and lower power settings. By limiting the cell (and adding more AP's to fix the subsequent holes) you will physically load balance the network. Turn RRM off. hard code the channels and power.
Depending on size of area and number of users, I would attempt to stick three AP's in your scenario with really small cell sizes that whose boundaries are no worse than -65dBm. When I have tweaked enough to roam from edge to middle to the other edge of the room and hit all three AP's based on location..you should be good. Directional antennas also would play an important role here as well, shining down from the ceiling with radiation patterns kind of like spotlights. Also you would have to turn the power down on the clients or else you just have the same problem except it is now upside down.
Aggresive load balancing tends to jack up phones and possibly create a 'host flapping' situation with data clients as well. I do not use it at all.
good luck-

Wlc unified, load balancing

removed

Hello,
Aggressive load-balancing on the WLC allows the LAPs to load-balance wireless clients across APs in an LWAPP system.
Please take a look at the following cisco doc which illustrates aggressive load-balancing on the WLC:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6366/products_tech_note09186a00809c2fc3.shtml

Aggressive load balancing - doco default

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for