On Unleashed APs, Im looking for the equivalent of this command (from vSZ):
ruckus(config-domain-zone)# ap reboot-timeout default-gateway 0
ZD had something similar also. I vaguely remember seeing this option in the unleashed GUI, but cant find it. I understand how it works, but for some reason on unleashed the default for this setting is something ridiculously low.
We have clients where they may need to access local network resources even if the GW is down or under maintenance. Additionally when you upgrade FW or reboot your router/GW it causes all the Unleashed APs / Master to reboot and adds additional, un-necessary delay to Wifi internet access being restored.
Anyone know how to change (or disable) this on unleashed FW?
(i do understand why this is the default but need it disabled at some locations)
Unleashed is based on ZoneDirector code, with more similar CLI commands.
Being able to find the def-gw is one of the ways the Unleashed network uses for recovery, so losing the router will cause Member APs to start the timer for Master reply, before assuming they need to take over.
I don't know of a way to maintain wireless connectivity to wired resources in Unleashed, if your network def-gw is not responding.
>will cause Member APs to start the timer for Master reply
But all the Members will still get a reply from the Master, even without a def-gw (router) in place, as all APs have to be on the same L3 subnet (and thus dont need a router to communicate, intra-subnet).
So im not sure i understand this reasoning.
I think this is poor design, or an oversight possibly. (or we should be allowed to either set or disable this "Timer for master reply" -as its set VERY low out of the box).
My own tests seem to show somewhere between 30s to 50s of inability to ping the def-gw, causes around 5 minutes of wireless downtime , as the unleashed aps are rebooting and trying to determine a new master, all awhile, the APs have been (and are) able to communicate with each other.
(In my test case, im running 4x r600 APs, with FW 22.214.171.124.64 , all Hardwired into same switch, and all APs set to static IPs, in the same subnet ofcourse).
This does not make any sense.
(i do understand why such a limitation exists in vSZ or ZD as with those controllers you *can* deploy the member APs across different L3 subnets, thus necessitating a router/def-gw for communications)
In contrast to unleashed which can ONLY be used when all APs are in the same L3 subnet.