The RF Domain manager would be automatically elected for that location which has mixed APs, and in your use case below, the AP 6532 will take precedence over AP 6511. RFS7000 would adopt both the AP types, and services will work without issue. ADSP v8.1.1 I believe supports WiNG v5.1.

Thanks so much! One more question, please. The reason why 6532s take precedence over 6511s is because 6532 fw contains 6511's while 6511s' fw does not contain 6532's? Thanks in advance again.

Precedence for a particular device to function as the RF Domain Manager is determined by that device's rf-domain-manager priority value.  This configuration can be found in the "self" CLI context of the device.  The higer the priority value, the greater the priority the device has over other devices in the same RF Domain. The default values are set in the WiNG 5.x code so that the precedence which Sunalini pointed out takes place automatically.  Device precedence was determined according to the processing and memory capabilities of each device type (NX, RFS, AP).  For example, the AP7131N has greater processing capabilities than the AP6532, so the default rf-domain-manager priority for the AP7131N is higher than that of the AP6532.  Same for an RFS:  RFS7000 has higher default priority than an RFS6000 which has higher default priority than an RFS4000 which is higher than an AP7131N, and so on. In a remote AP deployment where all APs are the same type and one AP should function as the RF Domain Manager, an election process will occur automatically based on a function of the device MAC address.  The default priority values can be changed.  It is recommended to only change these values when you wish to manually set a specific remote AP as the RF Domain Manager. self# rf-domain-manager priority

Clarification: With WiNG v5.1, NX and RFS series can remotely control groups of APs deployed remotely. We recommend remotes sites to not have more than 24 APs, if they are running services like SMART RF, Load balancing, and other advanced RF services. Also, the APs in these sites should be the same type, so that you have uninterrupted service when in a site survivable mode. With specific reference to "Virtual Controller", in an Adaptive Deployment mode, where you have the controller deployed over the WAN, and the APs deployed in the remote sites, doing all the packet switching, an NX 9000 or an RFS can communicate with the RF Domain Manager( one of the APs assumes this role) at that remote site. The RF Domain Manager aggregates and pushes statistics out to the Controller, for that particular site. Also, when firmware is pushed down from the Controller in the NOC, is it sent to this RF Domain Manager, which in turn pushes it out to the other APs on that site. In this case, when we refer to Virtual controller being managed by centralized RF/NX, it is actually the RF Domain Manager. Any of the WiNG v5.1 Access Points, when centrally controlled by an RFS/NX  - AP 650/AP6511/AP6532/AP7131 - can be RF Domain Managers. The aspects to keep in mind are: 1. AP 650 will not be site survivable 2. AP6511/AP6532/AP7131 are site survivable, and if communication to the controller is not available, will continue to operate with the configurations they had previously received from the controller, without any network disruption for the locally bridged traffic on the wireless network. For the pure "Virtual Controller", i,e, there is no controller available anywhere on the network at any point in time, and the AP itself is a controller for other "like" APs, it is able to: 1. Provide firmware upgrades for that group of APs, 2. Aggregate statistics  for the site for the group of APs it is controlling 3. Be the single point of configuration for that location. Pure "Virtual Controller" capability was available on the AP 6511 as part of its first release v5.0.1, and is going to be available on the AP 7131/AP 6532 as part of WiNG v5.2 release.

Thanks Sunalini, Rajesh, for your answers. Now it's totally clear. It was a misunderstanding between Virtual Controller mode (in AP6511) and RF Domain Manager. Thanks for this useful clarification. Warm regards, Matt

Sunalini, you said " the APs in these sites should be the same type, so that you have uninterrupted service when in a site survivable mode". Is this mandatory? I have a new project in Correos (office wifi access with NAC+Radius DynVLAN) where it could be interesting having both AP6511 (dedicated to managers' offices) and AP6532 (for large and clear normal users' areas). In principle they would like to use some centralised RFS7000 (they already have) to manage these APs located in remote buildings. So RFS7000 would simply adopt remote APs, as usual. No AP should be dedicated as Virtual Controller then. My concern is if a RF Domain Manager is always required in such a scenario, or if it is an option to improve traffic performance. They also will have ADSP to manage current Wing4 wireless infrastructure for post offices. Is Wing5 supported on ADSP?

No, when you enable virtual controller mode on an AP, it will no longer try to get adopted to another controller. Virtual controller mode is useful in situations where you have a small number of APs without any centralized management. this feature allows one of the APs to perform the management functions like single point of configuration and statistics, firmware upgrade etc. --Rajesh