cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1977
Views
15
Helpful
11
Replies

Cisco Access Points are fully burned out

cybergeek
Level 1
Level 1

Hello Everyone

We have a very serious issue going on with our cisco access points. This is our fourth AP which is fully burned out. We are using cisco WS-C2960X-48LPD-L to connect these access points. And i am getting following errors on the switch. 

Jan 17 15:36:54 EST: %ILPOWER-5-POWER_GRANTED: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power granted
Jan 17 15:36:54 EST: %ILPOWER-5-IEEE_DISCONNECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: PD removed
Jan 17 15:36:55 EST: %ILPOWER-7-DETECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power Device detected: IEEE PD
Jan 17 15:36:57 EST: %ILPOWER-5-POWER_GRANTED: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power granted
Jan 17 15:36:57 EST: %ILPOWER-5-IEEE_DISCONNECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: PD removed
Jan 17 15:36:58 EST: %ILPOWER-7-DETECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power Device detected: IEEE PD
Jan 17 15:37:00 EST: %ILPOWER-5-POWER_GRANTED: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power granted
Jan 17 15:37:00 EST: %ILPOWER-5-IEEE_DISCONNECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: PD removed
Jan 17 15:37:01 EST: %ILPOWER-7-DETECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power Device detected: IEEE PD
Jan 17 15:37:02 EST: %ILPOWER-5-POWER_GRANTED: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power granted
Jan 17 15:37:03 EST: %ILPOWER-5-IEEE_DISCONNECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: PD removed
Jan 17 15:37:04 EST: %ILPOWER-7-DETECT: Interface Gi1/0/9: Power Device detected: IEEE PD

 

So far only this interface is showing up in the logs. I would like to know if someone had this issue. Please suggest the solution. 

 

Thank you

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

Rich R
VIP
VIP

No point doing EFA - it's a known problem with the 1832 APs.  Search for 1832 and you'll see my previous posts on the subject.  We've already RMA'd hundreds of them.  Cisco reckon the failure rate is still below accepted MTBF so will not issue a field notice about it but the failure rate is much higher than we would consider normal and much higher than other AP models.  Once they're a few years old they start failing.

If you think it's power related you can limit them to 15.4W because the extra power is only needed for the USB port.  If you aren't using the USB port the WiFi will still work normally on 15.4.  Port config:

power inline static max 15400

View solution in original post

11 Replies 11

balaji.bandi
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

what is the IOS code running, consider good earthing for the cabinet or switch you rack. (check with electrician - how to fix earthing or grounding issues) - i have come across this way back poor power sources.

 

can you post :

#sh power inline

 

depends on code check the bugs also :

 

https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCuw22050?rfs=iqvred

 

 

BB

***** Rate All Helpful Responses *****

How to Ask The Cisco Community for Help

Hi BB

Thanks a lot for your prompt reply regarding this. We have other network devices in same cabinet and everything working fine. Only the two POE switches are having this issue but i can definitely ask the technician to confirm earthing for this cabinet. Also please find below the information you asked. 

POE Switch Information:

WS-C2960X-48LPD-L 15.2(7)E4 C2960X-UNIVERSALK9-M

 

 

show power inline

Module Available Used Remaining
(Watts) (Watts) (Watts)
------ --------- -------- ---------
1 370.0 202.5 167.5
Interface Admin Oper Power Device Class Max
(Watts)
--------- ------ ---------- ------- ------------------- ----- ----
Gi1/0/1 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/2 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/3 auto off 0.0 n/a n/a 30.0
Gi1/0/4 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/5 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/6 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/7 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/8 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/9 auto on 15.4 Ieee PD 4 30.0
Gi1/0/10 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/11 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0
Gi1/0/12 auto on 17.9 AIR-AP1832I-B-K9 4 30.0

These are the only devices connected to the switch, i am pretty sure we are not over utilizing the power on this switch. 

 

Leo Laohoo
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

If the APs are "burnt out", RMA them.  

We are already in process of RMA but we want to make sure that this issue is not recurring or the problem is with the switch. 

 


@cybergeek wrote:

We are already in process of RMA but we want to make sure that this issue is not recurring or the problem is with the switch. 


RMA the last one.  Notify TAC to get an EFA (Engineering Field Analysis) and make sure to include your Cisco AM/SE.  
NOTE:  Cisco does not want a repeat of the Memory Component Issue or Clock Signal Component Issue.

Rich R
VIP
VIP

No point doing EFA - it's a known problem with the 1832 APs.  Search for 1832 and you'll see my previous posts on the subject.  We've already RMA'd hundreds of them.  Cisco reckon the failure rate is still below accepted MTBF so will not issue a field notice about it but the failure rate is much higher than we would consider normal and much higher than other AP models.  Once they're a few years old they start failing.

If you think it's power related you can limit them to 15.4W because the extra power is only needed for the USB port.  If you aren't using the USB port the WiFi will still work normally on 15.4.  Port config:

power inline static max 15400

Thanks a lot for your input and detailed response., much appreciated. Yeah this totally make sense. 

Just a quick question, can you please let me know if this is applicable only for 1822 APs or the same issues with 2800 and 3800 APs as well. We are also using these models in our environment. 

 

Thank you

We've only seen it with 1832s, not 3802s and we don't use 2800.

Why do you think you're seeing it with those too?

We haven’t seen this problem yet with 2800 and 3802s but I just wanted to know if you have experienced any issue with these models as well. So far we only see them with 2800s.
Thank you for your response. Appreciate it.


@Rich R wrote:

Cisco reckon the failure rate is still below accepted MTBF so will not issue a field notice about it but the failure rate is much higher than we would consider normal and much higher than other AP models.  Once they're a few years old they start failing.


Rated. 

Cisco does not want a repeat of the Memory Component Issue or Clock Signal Component Issue is my opinion.

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: