cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
5659
Views
0
Helpful
10
Replies

AP2802 ethernet problem

Hello!

Please help me with the problem like :

https://supportforums.cisco.com/t5/other-wireless-mobility-subjects/aironet-3800-as-standalone-ap-for-site-surveys/td-p/3012689

 

 My configuration is:

  • Cisco flex 7510 controller in HQ.
  • Hundreds of 1602 and 1702 APs at branches.
  • One 2802i as a test of the new line
  • 1602 and 1702 APs are mostly connected via Cisco SB SF300 non PoE switches wit PWR-INJ4/ PWR-INJ5/ CISCO SB SB-PWR-INJ2 as power source.

After upgrading controller software from 8.3.133 to 8.3.140 my only 2802i AP stopped work and boot began to fail with the message like this:

 

   wired0stopped

 

From the non PoE switches side I see different pictures depending on the model.  On Cisco SB SF300 ports are down, on catalyst 3750V2 port is UP but no mac-address present. If I connect same AP2802i via PoE catalyst 4500 Ap2802I starts to work.

So I spouse there is a bug  in 8.3.140. It affects only 2802 and 3802 connected via PoE injector.

 

 So what should I do now? Fall back to 8.3.133 or wait to 8.3.’?’ update? We have no budget to upgrade all branch switches to PoE model.

 We have no service contract, but depending on this bug purchasing of 100 2802 AP can be delayed or canceled. 

 

Regards Serhii.

3 Accepted Solutions

Accepted Solutions

Is the port configured to run in less than 1G or is it a 100M port? There's a bug that affects 2802/3802 APs that will only let them operate on 1G ports running at 1G. 8.3.133.0 worked, but 8.3.140.0 broke it. https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvi14641

The workaround isn't accurate, power injectors do not fix the issue.

View solution in original post

The version you go with is up to you. 8.3.133.0 had some issues that made me want to get away from it. I wasn't surprised, it was a rushed release due to the WPA2 security vulnerabilities and fixes. If you didn't have any issues with it, then maybe downgrading is the way to go for you. Honestly, I'd try the TAC route and get a fixed version of 8.3.140.x, but that's just my opinion.

Regarding the other switch, I don't think it will make a difference what the access switch is, whether PoE or not. With my situation 100M ports didn't work under any circumstances, I had to use a 1G port to get the 2802 APs online with that software. If you end up using a PoE injector on a PoE switch make sure to disable PoE on the port, otherwise CDP advertises different PoE info and the AP can get confused. This is unrelated to the software issue. I had a 2802 AP on a 30W power injector that wouldn't turn the radios on because the PoE switch was advertising only 15.4 watts.

View solution in original post

10 Replies 10

Philip D'Ath
Advisor
Advisor

Have you configured the AP's and told them you are using power injectors?

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-3/config-guide/b_cg83/b_cg83_chapter_011101.html

Thx a lot for fast replay Philip!
No. Not yet.

History is the following: after upgrading CT7510 from 8.3.133 to 8.3.140 at HQ the only 2802i failed to join controller. I decided that AP lost files on a flash during upgrade and asked to transfer it to HQ. Then I connect it via Cat4506 in HQ and it successfully joined CT7510 (different PoE and PoE+ card were used). Then I asked to transfer it back to branch. Then AP2802 failed to join controller again and port on the switch at the branch site was DOWN. My college at branch provided to me a console output.

 

So any changes in Controller configuration will have no effect on AP until I will manage to get AP to HQ again and establish ethernet connection with AP via PoE Catalyst. Only then I can try this configuration. So I’ll try it any way. Of course it will take time for logistics. But it seems very odd that on 8.3.133 AP2802i worked fine with INJecor and other 1602 and 1702 survived upgrade 8.3.133 to 8.3.140 with same (non PoE Cisco SB SF300 switch + PWR-INJ4/5 SB-PWRINJ-2) and default config.

 Serhii.

1. Create a TAC Case so the Bug ID can be identified.
2. Wait for new 8.3 release scheduled for end of March 2018.

Is the port configured to run in less than 1G or is it a 100M port? There's a bug that affects 2802/3802 APs that will only let them operate on 1G ports running at 1G. 8.3.133.0 worked, but 8.3.140.0 broke it. https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvi14641

The workaround isn't accurate, power injectors do not fix the issue.

Thanks a lot for reply!
I see the symptoms and output is very close to
https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvi14641
When updates for 8.3.X are planned?


My previous working configuration was:
Branch:
Cisco SB SF300-48, 10/100Mb port
SB-PWR-INJ2
2802AP
HQ:
CT7510 8.3.133

After upgrade to 8.3.140 port failded and I have tried it with 100Mb port on WS-C3750V2-48TS (no 1G cooper ports on this switch) and on 100Mb and 1Gb (I'm not sure my cables are good enough for 1Gb) port on Cisco SB SF300-48.
All configurations do not work.

AP started ethernet only when i got it to HQ with 4500 PoE swith.

So for now I decided to test other power injector. I had ordered AIR-PWRINJ6 as replacement for SB-PWR-INJ2, witch worked fine with 2802AP and 8.3.133, and will test it is as soon as I get it.
Than I'll try 1Gb port with a 5e cable. If AIR-PWRINJ6 will not help I’ll manage to get 2802AP to HQ, connect it to CT7510 via Catalyst 4500 PoE switch and try to enable power injector
https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/wireless/controller/8-3/config-guide/b_cg83/b_cg83_chapter_011101.html


If this will not help should I wait for a new 8.3.XXX firmware, or downgrade to 8.3.133 will be the only option?


Any way I should get working config with injector because possible upgrade of about 100 1602AP to 2802AP (it is on hold now).

I don't think there is a planned update on 8.3 anytime soon. They just had a maintenance release. There are fixed versions of 8.3.140.x listed in the bug notes though. You could try to get one of those from TAC. I used 8.5.120.0 and had no issues. with <1G ports, so that's a good version with regards to this issue. I also got an AP operational by using a 1G SFP in one of our 3750 switches with all 100M access ports. That AP was already on a power injector, so that's an option if you only have this one 2802.

I have a new result now! It starts to work with SB-PWRINJ-2 and 1Ge port.

It is not possible for me to upgrade to 8.5 because of 1242 , 1262 Aps

So I have one working  config  for 2802 on 8.3.140:

Non PoE Cisco SB SF300; Ge port; SB-PWRINJ-2;             

Will it work with PoE Cisco SB SF300-48PP; Fe PoE+ port?

 Or I should downgrade to 8.3.133 to get 2802 work with 100Mb ports even when I have a PoE switch?

The version you go with is up to you. 8.3.133.0 had some issues that made me want to get away from it. I wasn't surprised, it was a rushed release due to the WPA2 security vulnerabilities and fixes. If you didn't have any issues with it, then maybe downgrading is the way to go for you. Honestly, I'd try the TAC route and get a fixed version of 8.3.140.x, but that's just my opinion.

Regarding the other switch, I don't think it will make a difference what the access switch is, whether PoE or not. With my situation 100M ports didn't work under any circumstances, I had to use a 1G port to get the 2802 APs online with that software. If you end up using a PoE injector on a PoE switch make sure to disable PoE on the port, otherwise CDP advertises different PoE info and the AP can get confused. This is unrelated to the software issue. I had a 2802 AP on a 30W power injector that wouldn't turn the radios on because the PoE switch was advertising only 15.4 watts.

Hello all!

In 8.3.141 bug is fixed.


@Sergiy Pyvovaroff wrote:

In 8.3.141 bug is fixed.


CSCvi14641

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: