Like this:

The evolution of WiFi system architecture saw competition between centralized and distributed designs.

In a centralized WiFi architecture, a controller is required to manage “dumb” access points (AP) whereas in a distributed WiFi architecture, no controller is required as the access points (AP) have “intelligence” built-in.

So which is better?

It all depends on which approach is able to meet the most of the requirements of its intended functionality.

The main advantage of a centralized architecture over a distributed architecture is the ability to manage multiple APs from a single point of control. This is extremely helpful especially when one has to manage hundreds of access points. Installation can be done quickly by simply plugging “dumb” access points without configuring them beforehand (assuming DHCP IP address are assigned). Network administrators can then at a later stage configure them all at one time. This simplifies the installation process compared to deploying “intelligent” APs whereby network administrator has to configure them one by one.

If centralized WiFi architecture seems so good, why do we have a distributed architecture then?

 A single point of management for hundreds of APs does sound good but what if this single point can also be a single point of failure. This single point of failure can bring down the entire wireless network while a single AP failure in a distributed environment will not impact the rest of the network. Centralized architecture also poses scalability issue whereby adding a new AP may require an additional controller if the existing controller’s capacity limit is reached. Without a centralized environment, “intelligent” APs can be added to the network with no consideration of a controller’s limit. Deploying wireless APs in a distributed manner has other advantages too. By having the “intelligence” built into the APs, features like Quality-of-Service (QoS) and access control policies can be enforced on the “edge” of the network instead of routing the traffic back to a controller, reducing any chance of delay and jitter introduction to the traffic.

Having said all that, which architecture will deem the best? Hard choice? Not at all – Xirrus provide the best of both worlds in a WiFi environment.

Xirrus Arrays have “controller” built-in giving you the benefits of an “intelligent” AP found in traditional distributed architecture, and together with the Xirrus Management System(XMS) to provide a centralized monitoring and configuration platform which makes managing hundreds of Arrays easy.

Advertisement