Nortel Networks Recording Equipment 1 User Manual
Voice over Wireless LAN Solution Guide
v1.0
December 2005
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13
Figure 2: Centralized Campus architecture
2.2.1.3 Branch
Office
The WLAN 2300 can also be deployed in a small branch office environment. Usually this type of
environment requires only a handful of APs, probably anywhere from one to six. The WSS 2350
is the model best suited for this environment, supporting up to three AP 2330s per WSS 2350,
including one PoE port for direct connection. A PoE injector or PoE switch would be required to
power the remaining two APs. The most cost-effective way to scale beyond three APs is to add
another WSS 2350. If you need more than six APs, you can also use the WSS 2360, if desired.
Figure 3 shows a sample Branch Office deployment.
environment requires only a handful of APs, probably anywhere from one to six. The WSS 2350
is the model best suited for this environment, supporting up to three AP 2330s per WSS 2350,
including one PoE port for direct connection. A PoE injector or PoE switch would be required to
power the remaining two APs. The most cost-effective way to scale beyond three APs is to add
another WSS 2350. If you need more than six APs, you can also use the WSS 2360, if desired.
Figure 3 shows a sample Branch Office deployment.
There have been a few different industry approaches to supporting branch office environments,
such as deploying “fat APs” or “pseudo-thin APs.” The fat-AP approach packs all WLAN features
into the AP itself, but manageability is a significant problem. The pseudo-thin AP, which moves
many control functions back into the AP (making it semi-fat), attempts to provide the best of both
worlds in the branch but in practice tends to provide the biggest limitations of both worlds. All of
these approaches either complicate the support of the WLAN solution or impose severe
limitations on the branch APs. Putting a thin AP in the branch and controlling it over the WAN is
also not a viable solution, because most WANs lack the latency and throughput needs of the thin-
AP model. The best solution is to put a low scale security switch in the branch along with the APs
so that both controller and thin AP are collocated. This solution brings the full feature set to the
branch without adding extra complications.
such as deploying “fat APs” or “pseudo-thin APs.” The fat-AP approach packs all WLAN features
into the AP itself, but manageability is a significant problem. The pseudo-thin AP, which moves
many control functions back into the AP (making it semi-fat), attempts to provide the best of both
worlds in the branch but in practice tends to provide the biggest limitations of both worlds. All of
these approaches either complicate the support of the WLAN solution or impose severe
limitations on the branch APs. Putting a thin AP in the branch and controlling it over the WAN is
also not a viable solution, because most WANs lack the latency and throughput needs of the thin-
AP model. The best solution is to put a low scale security switch in the branch along with the APs
so that both controller and thin AP are collocated. This solution brings the full feature set to the
branch without adding extra complications.