WAP4410N V01 Version - FAULTY HW - SLOW WAN - DON'T SET PORT to 1Gb - FAULTY.

[robweb5mm]

I have a V01 (first model WAP) THE WAP4410N V01 WAP IS FAULTY.

I hope this helps owners that own this first version ....

》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》

Information from firmware update file ....

Changes Since WAP4410N Hardware Version VID: V01

WAP4410N now has an additional external crystal to its PHY chip for reducing clock jitter when it works with some gigabit switches. These jitters occur during a corner case of stressing heavy wired and wireless traffic.

Changes Since WAP4410N Firmware Version 2.0.0.5

The firmware was updated and problems were fixed in firmware version 2.0.1.0.

New Field Added

The “Force LAN Port Speed to 100M” field has been added to the Advanced Setup page. Enable this feature to force the link speed of the LAN port of the access point to be at 100 Mbps. For example, during a corner case of stressing heavy wired and wireless traffic with some gigabit switches, if the LAN port on a WAP4410N access point with an earlier hardware version stops responding, enable “Force LAN Port Speed to 100M” to resolve the issue.

》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》》

In most peoples experience the port does work when set at 1Gb,

BUT ....  YOUR INTERNET SPEED WILL BE REDUCED BY APPROX. 200 - 300%.

WIRED TO WIRELESS AND WIRELESS TO WIRED DATA THROUGHPUT WILL BE VERY SLOW.

YOU WILL GET PACKET LOSS.

So it appears as although the WAP was sold to me with the Spec's. stating it had a Gb LAN PORT,  IT DOESN'T WORK .... and their remedy is to add a field in a firmware update to force the port to 100 Mb SO IT WORKS, (SLOWLY) Please correct me if I am inaccurate with this statement?

YOU CAN EITHER .... THROW THE WAP AWAY OR LIVE WITH A VERY, VERY SLOW NETWORK.  GREAT OPTIONS FOR A CISCO SMALL BUSINESS PRODUCT.

Please don't tell me to get it replaced, tried that, It appears CISCO is not interested!

[Kurt Schumacher]

Rob,

When you add the average (and even most real-world peak) WLAN throughput of virtually any Wireless access point on 2.4 GHz you might realize that the GbE interface is over-spec'ed. While the PHY link rate might exceed the capabilities of a Fast Ethernet on paper, the effective WAP4410N(va or v2) average and even the peak data rate can barely exceed 100 Mbit/s upstream or downstream. I can't see anything wrong to operate these kind of 2.4 GHz N300 AP on FE. It's only the heart bleeding being blinded by the long year WLAN performance hype by all vendors.

We're operating a bunch of WAP4410N(v1 and v2) and might have been lucky to never experience massive GbE port incompatibilities. On a WAP4410N related software issue (Cisco decided not to fix it) - they had offered an equivalent product exchange no so long ago. As we're in progress phasing out the WAP4410N when experiencing hardware issues (must say - pretty reliable hardware!), and replace these with current dual band 802.11ac/.11n AP, we decided to skip the appreciated offer to avoid a mix of hardware.

http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/wireless-adapter-bridge/bar/126-2_4-ghz-profile-up
http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/wireless-adapter-bridge/bar/125-2_4-ghz-profile-dn

As you see, only a few very current chipsets and implementations permit slightly higher peek data rates. And then - most deployments are nowhere near to these lab tests.

Regards,

-Kurt.

[Norrie603]

Hi Rob.

The timing of your comment is somewhat ironic, in that I have had cause to consider the future of my own WAP4410Ns since the turn of the year. I have three in service, 2x v02 & 1x v01, the same models I have had in use since I last contributed to the forum about this WAP model about a year ago, when I swapped out a v01-->v02, and first spotted the dropped packet difference between the variants.

Recently I decided to completely rebuild my network... new router, new switches c/w PoE+, and new WAPs. I envisaged a Single Point Cluster of dual band 802.11ac/11n access points. I note from Kurt's reply to your post that he is doing the same, although he does not mention which model he has chosen, or indeed is he even sticking with Cisco SMB! My choice is to use Cisco WAP371s. I recently sold off my v01 from last year, and even had the brand new replacement v02 (for the last v01 still in service), shrink-wrapped and unused, up for sale on eBay. However, last week I discovered I am to undergo major surgery very soon that will lay me up for quite some time, so I decided not to interfere with a stable wireless network configuration. I pulled the plug on the v02 sale to at least keep my options open till I know where I stand health-wise!

My two v02 do not drop packets, while my single v01 does. I really have no idea what data rate these things are currently running at, but my household users seem to be happy enough.

My inclination is to stick with Plan A, for easier cluster management, and phase out the older WAP4410Ns ASAP. But to delay doing this until after I am at least partially recovered from my pending operation.

Meantime, I'd be interested to know what model WAPs Kurt has selected to replace his "bunch of WAP4410N v1 & v2"?

Many thanks for your message, Rob.

Best regards

Norrie

[robweb5mm]

Hi Norrie,

Just wanted to say ... all the best with your health problems, I hope all goes really well.

I'm not trying to get anything more or less than what I payed for from Cisco, a WAP4410N V02 would be fine, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen.

Wish you well Norrie ... Rob.

[Norrie603]

Hi Rob.

Many thanks for your kind words! It seems that despite my cardiologist's two week estimate of last week, the surgeon who will actually do the biz said today that a 9-to-12 week wait is likely. So perhaps I will use this time to play around a bit with my network kit after all..

Rob, you say... "...a WAP4410N V02 would be fine, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen". Not sure I understand you. The v02 is the last variant released. I think this WAP is now end-of-life and no longer in production. I have 3x v02 plus 1x v01 now, so I can assure you both versions definitely exist.

Kurt's comments about speed make sense, but to be fair my household demands are not great so this is not really an issue for me. However I do like the idea of current dual band 802.11ac/.11n WAPs. I note that Kurt did not actually say what model he is using to phase out his own WAP4410Ns. Kurt?

Regards

Norrie

[robweb5mm]

Hi Norrie,

I asked Cisco if they would replace the V01 WAP4410N under their obligations under Aust. Consumer Law and they ran me round in circles. I was just saying if they still had a V02 Model in stock, that's all I expect as a replacement.

I'm sure Kurt's comments are valid, but I find it hard to believe that under ideal conditions 802.11n, 3 x 3 MIMO can't exceed 100 Mbs when referencing the MCS index values ... http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11n-2009 and other data. I'm not an expert in RF and WiFi.  Short of setting up real world tests I choose to believe the standards a product claims to adhere too. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT ANYWAY. The point is a product must, under law conform to it's published spec's.

Norrie, with my RF training, I don't like the idea of flooding my house with 5 GHz for health reasons, and again, we enter in to another subjective area like "In theory" compared to "Real world" results and beliefs.

Take care ... Rob.

[Norrie603]

Hi Rob.

TBH I'm not convinced that many of these "el cheapo" network products ever deliver what their spec implies. But as you say, they ought to.

In fact a good example is my ISP here in the UK, Virgin Media. I am supposed to be on a 100Mbps broadband service. The blurb is careful to say "up to 100Mbps"! I certainly seldom see that when I run a speed test.

Re 5GHz, while I plan to go ahead with a dual-band WAP upgrade, it's mainly an element of future-proofing. I have no clients for this band, except for a pair of Sonos PLAY:1s. While they can run on 5GHz, they use 2.4GHz just now. IIRC, they will only actually use the higher frequency band when acting as  surround sound speakers in conjunction with a Sonos Playbar to reduce latency. I will probably not even bother to enable the high frequency option on my WAP371s, not because of health reasons, just no need for it at the moment.

Meantime, I will stick with my trio of WAP4410Ns. They seem pretty stable and reliable.

Regards to Oz.

Norrie

[Eric Moyers]

Hello to all,

I am sorry to hear the issues that everyone is having.

How are you measuring your wireless speeds? 

Wireless speeds are a slippery slope. When working with wireless speed you have to consider the entire network and what you are measuring the with and between what devices.

First to Rob, you are correct there was some issue with the V01 that required the changes and additions to the firmware.and hardware prompting the V02.

As far as measuring wireless speed and comparing to the specs, first the network. As the saying goes something is only as strong, fast, etc. as the weakest link. That holds true for wireless as well. What is the WAP connecting to? Switch, router? Are those ports Gigabit ports? The client that is connecting is that capable of Gigabit speeds? Your wireless speed will only be as fast as the port it is traveling through. If the PC does not have a Gig Nic and the Switch the WAP4410N is not Gig capable then the wireless speed can be Gigabit.

So for argument sake, lets say that you have a Gig NIC on the PC and the Switch is Gig as well and router and modem. Now we need to make sure that You are only letting wireless "N" devices connect to the network by selecting "N only" not "G/N" for the signal. Because if you have any "G" devices then that will cause the Radio to drop and start operating at "G" to accommodate those devices. Remember "G" is only 54 Mbps.

The main reason you see up to in the specs for many things (Wireless, Gas Mileage, etc.) is that every customers environment is different. Just like with Gas Mileage, (depending on driving conditions gas mileage may vary) with Wireless, speed and distance/coverage area may be different. There are many things that can effect the wireless attenuation, diffraction, absorption. My house is different than any of yours. It is impossible to say, since I get XYZ coverage in my house and area, that you would get exactly the same in yours. The most reasonable thing to do, (which Cisco does and I believe that other wireless companies do the same way) is do measurements in an optimal area, as clean an unhindered as possible. Gather the best readings and determine the Best speeds that our products can do and then use wording like "capable up to 450Mbps, or capable up to 1Gbps. 

Hope this help explain some.

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

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

[robweb5mm]

Hi Eric,

Thanks for your post. To keep it short, yes my knowledge of WiFi and Networking covers everything you mentioned.  I have WiMax ISP 》RV180 》SG100D-8 SWITCH. Presently the WAP4410N is connected to the RV180.  Wireless Devices are all .11N. All Nics are Gb.

So if any of my Wireless Devices can exceed 100 Mbs my WIRED TO WIRELESS AND WIRELESS TO WIRED DATA THROUGHPUT WILL BE THROTTLED due to the WAP4410Ns Port having to be forced to 100 Mbs. (Several Wireless devices are connecting at well over 200 Mb.)

This is why I'm disappointed that Cisco won't replace my FAULTY WAP and I would have hoped that Cisco would have made a greater effort in making the WAP4410Ns fault known to owners.

At least by posting my original post, other owners of V01 Models will know that they will get better performance by setting the port on the WAP4410N to 100 Mb, but will still likely be throttling their network (as above).

Thanks again Eric .... Rob.

[Eric Moyers]

Hey, Sorry I was out yesterday. Send me the serial number for your WAP4410N. I would like to look a couple of things up. You can send to emoyers at cisco dot com

Eric Moyers

[robweb5mm]

Hi Kurt,

Thanks for your post. I don't know about your network etc., but I often have many Wireless Devices accessing the Wired Network concurrently, and 12.5 MB isn't much to share!

My primary purpose in posting was to simply make owners aware of the faulty hardware problem as I wasted many hours trouble shooting this problem until I finally found the Cisco info. buried in a firmware update file.  If I had only known, it would of saved me heaps of grief!

Take care ... Rob.

[Kurt Schumacher]

> but I often have many Wireless Devices accessing the Wired Network concurrently, and 12.5 MB isn't much to share!

Well, neither we as community members not Cisco can make the 2.4 GHz N300 class WAP4410N to provide higher throughput and better multi- or many-WLAN-client capabilities. 

A GbE interface working under all conditions won't help at all for the obvious bandwidth limitation on the air side pf the WAP4410N (and virtually any other standards compliant home/SOHO WLAN router, SMB WLAN router, SMB AP, .... including the latest and greatest hype models).

The limitations are set by the technology and the limited multi-channel availability on 2.4 GHz (majority are N300, very few AP and clients support N450 - the later ones can exceed the Fast Ethernet bandwidth under perfect conditions slightly - by a few percent).

> My primary purpose in posting was to simply make owners aware of the faulty hardware problem as I wasted many hours trouble shooting this problem until I finally found the Cisco info. 

The v1 hardware note is there as long as I can think of Cisco WAP4410N...

Regards

-Kurt.