Is it possible to connect with 802.3af according to the CBS110-8PP-D standard?

[Translator]

WLAH-G54/R (existing Baffalo access point) is currently connected via PoE.

In pre-purchase inquiry, CBS110-8PP-D can be connected to the old access point

I bought it, but it does not turn on at all. The new access point immediately reacted.

In addition, the power LEDs of the old access point are not available, but the POE conversion parts have become more and more heated.

Since there are many old access points, we have to exchange them by the time difference.

Simultaneous replacement is not possible.
Is it possible to connect with 802.3af according to the CBS110-8PP-D standard above?

Thank you for your response.

[Translator]

I will answer only clearly first.
The CBS110-8PP-D is 802.3af-compliant and can deliver a total of 32W on four PoE-supported ports.
Cisco Business 110 Series Unmanaged Switches Data Sheet - Cisco

"WLAH-G54/R (existing Baffalo access point) is currently connected via PoE."
Q1. What are you currently connected to through PoE? Please give me clear information such as the model number. Is it that it's available?

Q2. What are "Old Access Point" and "New Access Point"? Please give me clear information such as the model number.

"The power LEDs of the old access point are not available, but the POE conversion parts are getting more and more hot."
Q3. From this content, "PoE power is supplied to the "old access point" connected to the CBS110-8PP-D, and power LEDs are not available, but the POE conversion parts are gradually heated"Do you think that the situation is different? Reason: There is no reason to have heat even though there is no power supply.

Q4. How many old access points do you have? If the models are different, please tell us the number of units for each model name.

Q5.  There is a case that the POE conversion parts gradually became heated. What is "POE conversion parts"? Please provide specific information on this as well. Please also mention how each is connected and what is in the middle of the connection.
The Category and length of the middle LAN cable is also requested.
I think it's probably a PoE injector for Esper.

[Translator]

I don't know if it's the right information because I don't use WLAH-G54/R.

WLAH-AM54G54/WLAH-G54 Deployment Guide (5 Edition) (buffalo.jp)

On the Cisco side,We have designed and sold the CBS110-8PP-D to be PoE powered in accordance with IEEE 802.3af, but we have not independently verified it with 3rd party manufacturers, which are numerous in the market. It is possible to supply PoE power in accordance with IEEE 802.3af, but as described in the buffalo manual, it is called PoE because it is described to use a Buffalo dedicated product, but it may have unique specifications. In such cases, we believe that verification is necessary at the user's side. On the Cisco side, I will not mention it that much.

I saw an external article such as ASCII, but it seems that it is written that it is 802.3af compliant, but I can't say anything.

When I think about this phenomenon with Esper for a while, I think that somehow the power shortage was caused by connecting devices with a power supply capacity of 32W or more of CBS110-8PP-D, but I can't say anything about this.

[Translator]

We have designed and sold the >CBS110-8PP-D to be PoE powered in accordance with IEEE 802.3af, but we have not independently verified > with the many popular 3rd party manufacturers. It is possible to supply PoE power in accordance with IEEE 802.3af, but as described in the Buffalo manual >, it is described to use a Buffalo-dedicated product, so it is called PoE, but it may have original specifications. In such cases, the user > side will need to verify. On the Cisco side, I will not mention it that much.

Prior to the above purchase, I informed cisco of all the equipment configuration and received a response that I could handle it.

Now, it is very difficult to answer such a question.

If I had checked the above before I purchased it, I would not have purchased a cisco product.

So you mentioned that it was too appropriate to respond at the time.

[Translator]

Unfortunately, the community has users from various backgrounds who post and answer. Not limited to Cisco employees.

And each of them has a post that is best effort and useful. I don't post it as a representative opinion of Cisco, but I write it as an IT-loving volunteer in my hobby.

Please check back for more information about using the community.
Community Help - Cisco Community

Well, I am not sure if you can reply like this, but as one of the participants of the community, I will reply to the extent that I can understand without knowing the details, but I can not say that I will reply such a reply.

In general, Buffalo does not verify the operation with other companies' products as manufacturer side except for those with high needs, so I cannot understand in detail what expression was from Cisco, but I think that it is the user and the responsibility of verification by the user.

Let me leave you here before I begin.
It may work normally, but since we haven't received detailed information about the current situation, it's difficult to help with the solution. Please update the details when you wish. There are people from different backgrounds in the community, so it may be a helpful solution.
In this case, it is appropriate to use expressions that allow Unique to determine unique information, rather than words such as "new access point" or "old access point" that are too broad.
If you look only at the character information from the participant, you can't judge the cause and distinguish the situation because there is a big deviation in the judgment if it is not.

Thank you in advance.