WAP121 extremely slow

[zacmutrux]

A client contacted me for assistance with their wireless network. They had just purchased three WAP121 wireless access points and upon setting them up discovered the devices provided extremely slow access to the Internet. They have cable Internet service from Comcast and when attached to Ethernet or an older wireless router, speedtest.net shows download speed of 30Mbps. But when connected to any one of the three WAP121 devices they get less than 1 Mbps down.

Upon reviewing the settings with Cisco tier 1 support nothing seems amiss. The issue persists even when the AP is transported to another site. I am awaiting contact from tier 2.

Anyone else seeing this kind of behavior?

[David Rodrigues]

Thanks for the response. It's not like there is an odd product or configuration involved on my end. It's a very basic network using all Cisco products from the same small business product line. So if it's some type of "network profile issue" it's inherant to your product line. Furthermore, I can install anything from a single low end Belkin or Linkysys wireless N accesspoint to a higher end HP M220 (small business) with controller-less clustering (similar to WAP121) without experiencing the issue.

Configuration (Single VLAN)

Cisco RV180 Router

Cisco SG300-10P Switch

Cisco WAP121 Wireless Access Point

Comcast SMC Business Gateway (Cable Modem)

[tdaly]

I am having th same issue with WAP 121 AP's. I just setup four at one of our remote sites which has a flat network config with Comcast cable as the ISP.  We had less then a 1MB download rate and a 20MB upload on a 100mb pipe.  We found this string and changed the radio to to only a/b/g and now they work fine.  Is there a solution in the works for this? Most of the devices are N and it seems crazy we can't use that feature.  Please advise.

[Brian Bergin]

My 2¢...

What do you gain by running N?  WAP121s are entry level APs that only support a 100Mbs uplink and only a few clients, especially if you're running standard encryption of WPA2/AES.  While you only get 54Mbps over G, depending on the number of clients, your 121 aren't going to deliver N performance anyway.  If you need N performance you need WAP321s or WAP5xx units which are far better performing devices.  While I'm not defending the speeds people are seeing on the WAP121's, I can tell you I don't see those problems on clustered WAP321's that are deployed at a ski resort for their public Wi-Fi so they're quite busy.

[tdaly]

Its just as simple as getting what you paid for.  Why would you have to turn off an advertised feature to get the device to work? This is a small school that only needs a handful of access points and has limited money.  I've used both other AP's without issue but again that's not the point. Are you a Cisco sales rep? I think you missed the point of this thread.  This device is not operating as advertised and we had to troubleshoot the issue just to get normal performance.  It has nothing to do with N.

[Brian Bergin]

To be clear, no, I do not work for Cisco, but I have sold, installed, serviced, and maintained Cisco Small Business equipment for many years.  While you're bringing up what it's all about, remember I didn't say I disagreed that the devices have issues, I also said you're really getting what you paid for.  The number of 802.11g chipsets available today are dwindling so I'm guessing, without any proof, that Cisco opt'd to use a newer chipset in these units rather than an ancient 802.11g chipset to ensure they'd have access to the chips for the life of the unit.  Also, WAP121's are never going to give you 802.11n speeds.  The 100Base-T copper port should have been the first indication.  Understanding the specs of any device before you buy it is very important.  "The right tool for the right job", as they say. 

Anyway, so anyone here who can may be able to help you, can you please post:

• Firmware version of the WAP121s
  
• Did you factory reset the WAP121s when you did the firmware upgrade (I'm making an assumption here that when your units arived they didn't have the most recent firmware so they needed updated.  If that's the case I've always found a factory reset with the inital firmware upgrade is a good thing.)
  
• VLANs on the WAP321
  
• Encrption level and algorythm (i.e. WPA/WPA2 (personal or enterprise), TKIP or AES, mixed, etc...)
  
• Any other infrastruction devices connected betwen the WAP121 and the Internet including, but not limited to:
  
  • switches, make, model, and firmware
    
  • routers, make, model, and firmware
    
  • broadband modem(s), make, model, and firmware
    
• Are these WAP121's clustered?
  
• Are you running PoE from a swtich or an injector?  If the switch, make, model, and firmware.
  
• MTU at the router/modem (also have you optimized that?)
  
• Are your cables and patch cords certified or just manually made?  (that's not always a problem, but if you're using CAT6 I've seen more than my share of problems with locally made ends vs. using CAT6 certified cables and RJ45 keystone jacks.  CAT 5/5e is far less problematic in that regards).
  

Cisco and anyone else here really needs all of this to help you.  Have you called Cisco BTW?  What did they say?

[ezhawk1234]

I too have the same problem with this WAP121.  I have a 105/15 connection through my cable ISP.  I have my modem plugged into a Cisco 2821, then into a 2970G and then into the WAP121.  When I am connected via wire on the 2970G I can get 80/12 speed without breaking a sweat.  Even at peak times.  When I connect wireless via the WAP121 I can get no better than 15/12.  Is there possibily a hardware issue with the WAP121s that can't handle the throughput?  I have upgraded the firmware to the latest verison and ironically my speeds got worse.  Before I started I was on 1.0.0.4 and could at least get 35/12 speeds.  Now I'm on 1.0.4.4 and the speeds are low like everyone else.  Granted better than some that I see that are getting under 1 or 2 Mbps.  

What's really a sign that that there is something seriously wrong with the WAP121 is with a consumer grade WAP610N, I'm able to do 40/12.  Seems to me with as long as this problem has been going on with the WAP121 is that there is a hardware issue that a firmware upgrade can't overcome.  Maybe in some of the later model 121's they've upgraded some of the hardware in them so they can handle the speeds.  

But this is rather disappointing that this is such a big problem that has been going on for so long and there is still no actual "fix".

[Edgardo Rodriguez]

I´ve been through the same nightmare with these beatiful devices.....Today surfing on the web i arrived here...And, once more, hopeless i have checked the firmware update page... and voila...

Resolved Issues
CSCul37277—WAP321 Stops replying to pings if untagged VLAN is
disabled
CSCue25749—WAP121 - LAN to Wireless throughput very low
CSCur40991—Cluster security issue

Firmware 1.0.5.3 released on 22-Oct-14

Right now i´ll give it a try!

Here is the link: http://software.cisco.com/download/release.html?mdfid=284152657&softwareid=282463166&release=1.0.5.3

Good luck!!!

[Harry Trieu]

Any luck with the new firmware?

I just installed 1.0.5.3 and throughput is still extremely poor. I tried a beta firmware the support team sent to me, but no luck with that either.

Has anyone got Cisco to replace their WAP121s with the WAP371? I'm just about ready to replace the WAP121 with a Ubiquiti UAP.

[Eric Moyers]

My name Eric Moyers. I am an Engineer in the Small Business Support Center. 

I am sorry to hear that you are experiencing this issue. I have been talking to the engineer that you spoke with today. I am going to ask that he give you a call back and proceed to assist you with this case.

Eric Moyers
.:|:.:|:. CISCO | Cisco Technical Support | Wireless and Surveillance Subject Matter Expert

Please rate helpful Posts and Let others know when your Question has been answered.

[Edgardo Rodriguez]

I got much better performance once updated the unit.... Leaving aside most things we tried, i got back to use automatic channel selection...

perhaps you can share with us how is your radio configured so we compare....

Good luck!

[bgmservices]

Today, I went nuts with these stupid 121's.

Two weeks ago I took one of the two in a clustered environment, back to the office. Reset the device, updated the firmware, configured it and start using it. No problems at all. Download speed 76Mbps, Upload 45Mbps.

Back to the customers location, the problem begins again. Even though my laptop is in front of the device (less than 50cm), it only connects at 5Mbit. No speed what so ever. Taking it out of the cluster and puting it in Wireless-G mode it gets as good as about 10Mbps. It tried changing the PoE insert (Gbit capable), using different cables, setting the portspeeds of the router at 100Mbit. Switching powermanagement off, etc, etc. A Draytek Vigor 2130 is used as router/firewall behing a cable modem from Ziggo (ISP).

After 4 hours troubleshooting, I gave up, and took the device back home. Back home I plugged it in in a PoE switch (HP 1910-8G-POE+). The internet connection is secured by a Draytek Vigor 2960 and connected to a fiber connection (100Mb/100Mb). The 121 performed super sonic!!! At wireless-G it is about 45/35Mbps. Put it back in wireless-N, it performs at 80/50Mbps.

As reading about VLan's in earlier posts, I suppose it has to do something with these VLan's.

This really does me remind about the 4410N's. I still have 14 of those devices witch are broken and Cisco did not come up with a solution. I started replacing these 4410N's with 121's and 321's. Common Cisco, do something about it. There is enough information available in witch cases these problems occur. How do I explane to my customer that he has to pay 10hours in total, troubleshooting the device witch only costs 100,- €

Additional info:

No results when Unscheduled Automatic Power Save Schedule is disbled.
No results when Bandwith Utilization is disabled
Enabling Single Point Setup does not influence download/upload speed. Perhaps only a few percentages.

When leaving the negotiation speed to Auto, the download and upload speeds are 69/47MBps
When setting the negotiation speed to 100Mb FD the download and upload speed changes to 18/45MBps.
When setting the negotiation speed to 100Mb HD, the download and upload speed changes to 46/45MBps.
When setting the negotiation speed to 10Mb FD, the download and upload speed changes to 2,6/8MBps.
When setting the negotiation speed to 10Mb HD, the download and upload speed changes to 7,3/6,2MBps.

The strange thing is that in Half Duplex mode, the download speed is about twice as fast as in Full Duplex. That should not be the case.

I'll test these settings at the customers location.

support at bgm-services.nl

[RICK DEXTER]

We are not using any VLANS (or even any smart switches) with our 121's, although they ARE clustered with single point setup. At the moment we have N disabled and we're getting about 15/3 from wireless on a 100/10 Comcast connection.  If we turn N on it goes back to about 1mbps by 300k or so (rough estimates because it's been months since we've been to this site).

[RICK DEXTER]

We tried 1.0.5.3 and it didn't help.   Leaving N support disabled seems to make the units perform at a somewhat reasonable speed (i.e. 10mbps instead of 0.2 mpbs). 

Our config is a 100mb by 20mb Comcast cable (business class) connection, just using the Comcast modem and no additional router or firewall.   On wire we get about 95mbps by 22mbps.  On wireless only about 10mbps by 10mbps.  The WAP121's are plugged into a 100mbps port on the switch.  We do have them in cluster mode, but had the issue with only one AP as well.   If you have 121's and are still running sub-1mbps at least disable N to make it bearable.

[wshservices]

Hi Guys,

I recommended three WAP 121's to one of my clients as they operate a business from a three story town house and needed good wifi coverage throughout the home, after looking we put 3 x 121's into the house as a cluster. We are having exactly the same issues as everyone else, we ended up disabling N profile and speed increased but not anywhere a cisco device should perform to, especially of this type. Can anyone or an engineer please help, my client is extremely annoyed as you would expect.

We are running the latest web available firmware.

Regards John

[RICK DEXTER]

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but welcome to the club.

We've all been dealing with this for years and Cisco hasn't fixed it.  I don't think they really know what's wrong or they can't reproduce it.