Controller or no controller

[rjf2019]

Just asking out of curiosity, because networking is something that I'd like to learn more about. I'd be interested to hear anyone's views about the pros and cons of going for a wireless network that requires a dedicated controller, vs buying specific APs that do not need a dedicated controller. (I'm thinking that larger organisations you'd definitely go for the controller?)

 

Thinking about a school with 8 classrooms, so probably talking no more than 12 APs in total.

 

Would I also be right in thinking that some brands favour Wireless Controllers, as I see a lot of Cisco controllers for sale, but haven't seen any Unifi units listed as yet.

[Katy]

Unifi controller is either software installed on a spare server/VM, or a "cloud key" which is a tiny bit of hardware. They just use the controller to set the config and manage them, the Unifi APs can function with the controller turned off.

[rjf2019]

Unifi controller is either software installed on a spare server/VM, or a "cloud key" which is a tiny bit of hardware. They just use the controller to set the config and manage them, the Unifi APs can function with the controller turned off.

 

Ah - thanks for that. The Cloud Key appears to be very good value for money. Would I also be correct in thinking that there's no annual licence fee for using their web platform to manage and configure?

[jmak]

Ah - thanks for that. The Cloud Key appears to be very good value for money. Would I also be correct in thinking that there's no annual licence fee for using their web platform to manage and configure?

Correct

[mikeprice]

I installed UniFi at the Primary school where I worked - about the same size as yours

 

I installed the controller on site - the resources that it took up were minimal - basically about nothing - but the system was excellent and didin't interfere with anything else on the system

 

 

The APs carried on running fine if the controller stopped for any reason

 

really can't recommend it highly enough

[FN-GM]

The APs carried on running fine if the controller stopped for any reason

 

They will for most things. But if you have 802.1X it will break if the controller isn't running.

[wright-fi]

A controller is a centralised place to manage monitor and maintain your wireless network. There are many different deployment options for wireless controllers and sometimes that can cause confusion. Here is a very simple breakdown of the common controller types I can think of:

 

Physical onsite controller - This is the first controller ever to be created, one of the drawbacks is that a secondary controller is usually required to provide redundancy. This type of controller still works well and some people like to have a physical bit of tin but in my opinion this design a little old fashioned.

 

Cloud controller - This seems to be the way the of the future, they have redundancy built in and even if your internet connection goes down the APs will continue to function (limited to local resources and depending on vendor some features may cease to work). The drawback is the ongoing cost that some vendors charge for use of the cloud controller.

 

Self-hosted cloud controller - If you have an existing server infrastructure you can host your own private cloud, this acts like a cloud controller without the ongoing costs. This also works well for multi-site deployments for example a multi academy trust.

 

Controller built into the AP - Some vendors allow one of the APs to act as the controller (the AP uses its existing CPU / RAM to build a controller within the AP), this is a good way of saving costs as you don't need any additional hardware or to pay ongoing hosting costs. The drawback is the limited scale and reduced feature set but this would likely work well in a network of 12 APs.

 

All of that said a controller isn't required, most AP's vendors can be configured on a per AP basis. While this can work it's not a practice that I like, if you want to make a config change you have to do it on 12 APs not 1 controller. Monitoring is limited to 1 AP at a time. Also some other services like guest portals can be affected, one example is that users have to re-authenticate to the captive portal when roaming between APs.