A large campus network has deployed two wireless LAN controllers to manage the wireless network. WLC1 and WLC2 have been configured as mobility peers. A client device roams from AP1 on WLC1 to AP2 on

Question

Options

• AWLC2 marks the client with a foreign entry in its own database.
• BWLC2 marks the client with an anchor entry in its own database.
• CWLC1 marks the client with a foreign entry in its own database.
• DWLC1 marks the client with an anchor entry in its own database.

• A
  10% (2)
• B
  5% (1)
• C
  5% (1)
• D
  81% (17)

Explanation

Inter-Subnet Roaming and Mobility Anchor/Foreign Roles

When a client roams from AP1 (WLC1) to AP2 (WLC2) across different subnets, WLC1 becomes the anchor controller because it holds the client's original IP address and session information - it "anchors" the client to its original subnet to maintain IP continuity. WLC1 marks the client as an anchor entry in its database, while WLC2 (the new controller where the client physically connects) marks the client as a foreign entry, acting as a tunnel endpoint that forwards client traffic back to WLC1.

• Option A is wrong because WLC2 is the foreign controller (correct role), but it marks the client as a foreign entry in its own database - however, this describes WLC2's role, not WLC1's, making it an incomplete/mislabeled distractor.
• Option B is wrong because WLC2 marks the client as a foreign entry, not an anchor entry - the anchor role belongs to the original controller (WLC1).
• Option C is wrong because WLC1 is the anchor, not the foreign controller - WLC1 retains the client's original session, so it cannot be foreign.

Memory Tip: Think "Anchor = Origin" - whichever WLC the client started on drops the anchor and keeps the client's IP. The new WLC is the foreigner in the relationship.

No community discussion yet for this question.