I think the new platform is a great step in the right direction. Having tried it out I can say that yes, it is quite buggy, but it is basically usable and with some time and a lot of bug fixes will become the platform of choice going forward.  It's pretty good for a first public cut of code.   The WNBU is supporting it and already we're seeing close to feature parity with the 9800 to the exiting AireOS - this was one of the problems with the previous XE based controller. The other major change is that we are no longer forced to use the Converged Access model.  That was the other major problem.  You can use the new XE controller in Flex mode much the same as the existing AireOS controllers.   The fact that the 9800 is running XE is a good thing, and I think Cisco learnt a lot about what not to do with the last attempt at an XE based controller.  This time they are probably going to get it right. ... View more

Looks like it is fixed in 16.6.4 which came out a few days ago.  Maybe give that a try? ... View more

There are licenses for the 1100s to allow an additional 200Mbit of IPSec traffic: FL-VPERF-4P-100 -  IPsec Performance: Additional 100 Mbps for ISR 1100-4P and 200 Mbps for ISR 1100-8P.   I doubt very much Cisco would sell a license for additional crypto throughput if the box itself couldn't do at least the same performance in terms of non-crypto traffic. I will have one in a few weeks to do some real world benchmarking with :-)   ... View more

Those PoE injectors certainly look good enough to me. One last thing - can you confirm the specifications of the cables?  Have you tried swapping them over with new Cat5e or better grade to rule that out? If you have and it still doesn't work then it is probably time to raise a TAC case.  Either the documentation is incorrect or there is a bug of some sort. ... View more

Even on these 2960s that went FCS 2 months ago? http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/switches/catalyst-2960-l-series-switches/datasheet-c78-737665.html ... View more

That's what I had thought Leo.  But we're still seeing new router and switch devices coming out relatively recently and only supporting Classic IOS - which to me paints a confusing picture as to if that is really what they are intending to do across the board: C819/C860/C880/C890 2960-X 2960-XR 2960-L 2960-CX 3560-CX Industrial Ethernet Line (5000,4000 etc) These aren't all low cost devices, either.  Memory, processor and storage sufficient to run XE is not expensive to buy especially in the quantities Cisco would be purchasing. ... View more

Can you put more details about the PoE injectors you are using?  You mentioned D-Link PoE adaptors, then Ubiquity adaptors.  Model numbers would be useful. The problem is most likely due to something with the PoE injectors (not necessarily faulty - just not quite interoperable) however it could be related to the PoE negotiation.  It might also be worth opening a TAC case about it as I don't know if the Wireless team test the 2800s with third party PoE adapters. I have tested and ran 2800s successfully with the AIR-PWRINJ6= - so it definitely does work with those ones but they are Cisco - not third party units. Incidentally you can use Cisco Small Business Gig PoE adapters as well (SKU: SB-PWR-INJ2), they look and work identically, are much cheaper and have the identical OEM part number but with a different sticker/logo :-) ... View more

What is going to be new in CUWN 2.0 ?  So far all I have seen is that something new is coming, but no details.  I'd hate to be considering my options as to what I would buy right now................. ... View more

Sure - there is still 16.3.x which seems to be overall, quite solid and I think will be around for some time yet.  But going forward the feature has been removed. However the real takeaway from this change is that Cisco no longer see the Converged Access model as we know and as they have been marketing it, as the way forward for everyone. I tried CA in a lab/nonprod environment and it was a disaster in terms of a brownfield deployment because I didn't have CA switches to connect to every single AP all at the same time.  It might be OK for a greenfield deployment but the transition from existing to new CA is a nightmare all for relatively little gain.  I had to keep my existing WLC anyway so I saved nothing, gained nothing, but added complexit, wasted time and it cost license fees.   FlexConnect works well for most people and CA just seemed and felt like a bad hack - although the concept sounded good.  Additionally CA code seemed to lag way behind that of the AireOS code in terms of features, AP support and the CA code seemed to be constantly in a state of catch-up.  I had to wait for switch firmware updates to pick up wireless features and new AP support, for example.  This meant the switching team were indirectly dictating what and when I could deploy a new generation AP. In addition in a corporate environment as an engineer I then had a double blow of determining if an IOS-XE upgrade on my switch was also going to fix switch bugs but break my wireless environment.  This made switch firmware upgrades very high risk and the process for rolling back was messy because I would have had to roll back both.  (Yes there was talk about the capability of splitting out packages and being able to upgrade independently, but there hasn't been a single case where Cisco actually released separate packages to do this - so in my mind it was only ever marketing fluff). In my view Cisco seem to have realised now that CA was a mistake and it won't take off.  Perhaps if they take a step back they may realise why and what the shortcomings were with it in terms of real world use cases. What may work well is if they can integrate and decouple the wireless code from AireOS into the Cat3k, but as a VM.  Then we would get the best of both worlds and they would be onto what I think would be a winning idea. Apparently there is something in the works going forward with regards to CA.  I am not privy to what it is, but whatever it is I hope they get it right this time.  The cat3k is a great platform with lots of capabilities but wireless to date has not been one of the more useful of them. ... View more

That was almost my exact words when I opened the case too.  If my Samsung Galaxy S6 can do 64share as can cheap telco dongle devices, then it is very surprising that my IOS router cannot. I don't believe this is just a problem with the 800 series though.  It is almost certainly a cross-platform feature that is lacking in IOS across the board on all IOS based routers. ... View more

No.  Cisco came back and advised me that (quote): "The Dev Teams have confirmed us that is feature is not supported, They have also said that there is no current road-map available to introduce this feature." There is an enhancement bug ID for this, which is: https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvc33689 If you would like to see this feature implemented then please log a TAC case referencing the bug ID and request that the TAC engineer link your TAC case to the bug ID.  This will help Cisco understand that there are customers who want to see this feature. ... View more