Could you advise from your own experience is it good practise to use LAG (Link Aggregation) on CISCO wireless lan controllers on not?

Benefits (as for me): redundancy and a little bit simplification (less interfaces). Drawbacks: LAG doesn't support aggregation control messages, so it is like simple link bondings.

  • I don't know which WLC you have, but if it's the 4404 there is no question... LAG is better because it helps automatically avoid the 48 AP per ap-interface limits on a WLC physical interface. Jul 23, 2013 at 2:11
  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can post and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Jan 5, 2021 at 18:23

2 Answers 2


We like LAGs on Cisco Wireless controllers, but how you do it depends on the model. We used to have 4404 controllers that required static LAGs. Now we have the 5508 and it supports LACP.

We had no problem with LAG, and I prefer it for uplinks from the controller.

  • 1
    The 5508 does not support LACP (as of 7.4 code), so LAGs have to be configured 'mode on' in order to bundle. You have to be careful in your configurations, but even without LACP, it's how we prefer to deploy them.
    – Santino
    Jul 22, 2013 at 13:15

Pleae keep in mind that the WLC LAG implementation is broken by design and you have to dumb down your channel loadbalancing to

port-channel load-balance src-dst-ip (exclude vlan)

(where the exclude vlan needs to be applied only if available). Since this is a chassis wide operation it will impact all the other channels...

This has something to do with DTLS crypto.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.