WET200 to WET200 Bridge, WEP Only?

[ally00001]

Hi, first time poster

I've just purchased 2 WET200 wireless bridges for our organisation, with the intention of using them to create a wireless bridge between 2 buildings.I've followed this guide here:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps10047/products_qanda_item09186a0080a36471.shtml

...and I'm unable to configure any kind of security other than WEP. More disconcertingly, the foot of that guide states:

"Note: WET200 only supports WEP for the Wireless Security."

Surely this can't be the case? All the marketing blurb states clearly that the WET200 supports WPA2, and I would have thought WPA2 was a given for any wireless product sold today, especially a business grade product. Have I misunderstood what this device can do?

I am running firmware 2.0.3.2.

[qumartin]

Hello

The Wet200 it supports wpa and wpa2 also. The main thing that you have to make sure when setting up the wireless bridge is make sure to match up the setting on each. Under wireless security there in the drop down you should see a list of securtiy option.

Hope this has been helpful

Quendale

[ally00001]

Thanks Quendale,

Unfortunately when I set one of the bridges to ad-hoc mode as per the instructions, the only security option available is WEP. I have all of the other security options available provided I'm not trying to bridge to the other WET200. I am now a bit concerned that the 2 devices I have purchased are of no use. Why does the Cisco documentation state "Note: WET200 only supports WEP for the Wireless Security" on the bridging guide?

[ally00001]

Ok, further reading on other forums confirms that a WET200 to WET200 bridge cannot be configured with anything better than WEP

To do what I need to do, I need to purchase a wireless access point such as the WAP200. Then configure this for WPA2 and then connect the WET200 to it.

[Joni_Kahara]

Having the exact same problem here and of course I, like you, discovered this lack of capability only after purchasing the pair. I'd say that the documentation is a bit misleading in this case.

Cisco reps, you haven't given any comment after the March 7th post by Alistair? How should we interpret this kind of silence after a customer points at an obvious problem with your literature?