When will 3560CX switches be fully CER compatible?

[Robin Burns]

A couple of years ago we bought some 3560CX-12-PD-S switches as planned replacements for older switches.  Got stopped cold with that model when we found the CX line wouldn't work properly with CER.  That leaves us without an all-Gigabit 12-port model and no ideal option when 8 ports is too small, but space constraints won't handle a 24-port.

I bugged my Cisco technical rep every few months to no avail.  Answer was always, it's not compatible, no plans to fix it.  Pretty bad I think for Cisco to release a new line of switches without bothering to make them compatible with their own products??

We are currently running CM ver. 10.5.2.129, and CER 10.5.1.2.   The CX almost worked with our previous 8.x version of CER but after the upgrade to 10.5, CER generated errors trying to talk to the switch and wouldn't recognize it at all.  So I hae to wonder if the 10.5 software team simply neglected to address compatibility - an error of omission rather than some fundamental change that makes them permanently incompatible.

Anybody know when the CX's will be fully compatible with CER?

[Leo Laohoo]

I bugged my Cisco technical rep every few months to no avail. 

Request your Cisco AM/SE to raise a PER or Product Enhancement Request.  

Some of the reason(s) why they can't/won't raise a PER when they know that a certain model may not last long in the market and getting a software knocked up would take too long to roll out.  That kind of thing. 

[Robin Burns]

"Request your Cisco AM/SE"

Aren't they supposed to think of that?  Having a hard time with that channel as our engineer moved on - we don't have one at the moment - and our new acct mgr is hard to get a hold of.

" a certain model may not last long in the market"

Not sure that's relevant.  Aren't the CX's still shown as current models on cisco.com?

[Leo Laohoo]

Aren't they supposed to think of that?

The processes and procedures inside Cisco is a ton.  Some may know about this and some don't.  Give them a "benefit of the doubt" and presume he/she/they don't.  Give them a reminder.  If you hear them groan at the end of the phone, then this proves that they know about it. 

Aren't the CX's still shown as current models on cisco.com?

I'm talking about 12 to 18 months down the track.  Normally it takes that long (or longer) to get a feature published. 

[gearbox]

Robin,

Those switches are not natively supported because they respond with the wrong OID which freaks out CER.  Here is the command you need to issue for the work around:

“no snmp-server sysobjectid type stack-oid”

Let me know if that works.

[Robin Burns]

That worked!  Where did you come up with that?  

The last time this happened TAC sent me a patch for CER but obviously it was not a true fix.  The switch I installed recently was bought at the same time as the one they provided the patch for.

Looking at the Phone Tracking Log (after successful tracking) I see an OID associated with the switch IP.  Does that mean CER assigned an OID, or that the command above makes the switch send a valid OID?

[gearbox]

Hey Sorry Robbin I didn't see this.  I had to open a TAC case and it was an issue with the stacking MIB.  Some TAC engineers are better than others :D

[citybett1]

Thanks Gearbox for the suggestion of using "no snmp-server sysobjectid type stack-oid".  I'm trying to do the same thing to get a Catalyst 2960-L switch to work with Cisco Emergency Responder, but on my switch there is no sysobjectid parameter for "no snmp-server".  Anyone know any other workaround, or if the command syntax has changed in IOS 15?  

Here's my switch information.  Model WS-C2960L-48PS-LL, IOS 15.2(6)E1, and parameter options for "no snmp-server" 

Switch(config)#no snmp-server ?
  accounting        SNMP Accounting parameters
  cache             Enable SNMP cache
  chassis-id        String to uniquely identify this chassis
  community         Enable SNMP; set community string and access privs
  contact           Text for mib object sysContact
  context           Create/Delete a context apart from default
  drop              Silently drop SNMP packets
  enable            Enable SNMP Traps
  engineID          Configure a local or remote SNMPv3 engineID
  file-transfer     File transfer related commands
  group             Define a User Security Model group
  host              Specify hosts to receive SNMP notifications
  ifindex           Enable ifindex persistence
  inform            Configure SNMP Informs options
  ip                IP ToS configuration for SNMP traffic
  location          Text for mib object sysLocation
  manager           Modify SNMP manager parameters
  packetsize        Largest SNMP packet size
  password-policy   SNMP v3 users password policy
  queue-length      Message queue length for each TRAP host
  source-interface  Assign an source interface
  spi               Configs for SNMP communication using SPI
  system-shutdown   Enable use of the SNMP reload command
  tftp-server-list  Limit TFTP servers used via SNMP
  trap              SNMP trap options
  trap-source       Assign an interface for the source address of all traps
  trap-timeout      Set timeout for TRAP message retransmissions
  user              Define a user who can access the SNMP engine
  view              Define an SNMPv3 MIB view

[gearbox]

citybett1,

Did you ever figure this out?  They have a fairly new CER update.  Don't know if you have tried it.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cer/11_5_4_su2/english/release_notes/guide/cer0_b_cisco-emergency-responder-version-1154su2.html

[citybett1]

Thanks gearbox for asking.  No, I haven't bothered trying to load any newer CER versions since none of them list the 2960-L switches in their release notes as being compatible.   So I've been working around the issue by manually adding the extension numbers and assigning their ERL in the emergency responder.