Support for WAP371 Wireless-AC/N Dual Radio Access Point with Single Point Setup

Kingsleyizuka · ‎12-18-2019

Hello,

WAP371 devices refused to allow the inclusion of a device's MAC address in the list of allowed MAC addressed when configuring MAC address filtering. The weird error message is attached. It says:

"The MAC address cannot be a multicast or a broadcast address. Enter a valid MAC address"

The device's MAC address starts with "99" OUI value and is "99:**:**", when the '99' was changed to any values less than '99', like 98, it was allowed.

I supposed this is a glitch in the firmware, which has been updated to the latest version.

Please how could the device be configured with this MAC that starts with '99'?

Thanks.

marce1000 · ‎12-18-2019

- What vendor does this device mac address belong too ? Can it be 'consistenly verified' with (for instance):

https://www.macvendorlookup.com/

M.

-- Each morning when I wake up and look into the mirror I always say ' Why am I so brilliant ? '
When the mirror will then always repond to me with ' The only thing that exceeds your brilliance is your beauty! '

Kingsleyizuka · ‎12-18-2019

It was unverifiable.

But I think it was the algorithm of the six (6) input fields for MAC address. Because, the device's MAC address was accepted when it was configured on an AP that allows for one input field for MAC address.

Thanks

marce1000 · ‎12-19-2019

- If it's unverifiable then it's still questionable whether this is a legitimate mac address and or perhaps this AP took rightful action.

M.

-- Each morning when I wake up and look into the mirror I always say ' Why am I so brilliant ? '
When the mirror will then always repond to me with ' The only thing that exceeds your brilliance is your beauty! '

Kingsleyizuka · ‎12-19-2019

My concern is not even the verification of the manufacturer but that the first input field of the MAC filtering feature in WAP371 does not allow the use of '99' value. It seems Cisco recognises a MAC address beginning with '99' as invalid because even a managed switch, running IOS, returned an error that the 'MAC address was invalid'.

marce1000 · ‎12-19-2019

- We are dead-circulating against my argument : stating it otherwise. That particular devices, from which vendor does it originate ?

M.

-- Each morning when I wake up and look into the mirror I always say ' Why am I so brilliant ? '
When the mirror will then always repond to me with ' The only thing that exceeds your brilliance is your beauty! '

Kingsleyizuka · ‎12-20-2019

Well I couldn't verify the manufacturer for "99:09:CF". Kindly let me know if you find out.

Thanks.

marce1000 · ‎12-20-2019

- Can I not suppose, that if that device is your property, that you should know who you bought it from ?

M.

-- Each morning when I wake up and look into the mirror I always say ' Why am I so brilliant ? '
When the mirror will then always repond to me with ' The only thing that exceeds your brilliance is your beauty! '

Kingsleyizuka · ‎12-20-2019

This argument is not well directed.

Is it invalid to have a MAC address start with '99', especially on Cisco devices?

Kingsleyizuka · ‎03-12-2020

To buttress on this issue, it was noticed recently that the "MAC address filter" field does not allow the inclusion of a MAC address with 'FF' value as a starting within the address field i.e. FF:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX or 'XX:XX:XX:96:FF:F6'. Consequently, the MAC address will be considered to contain a multicast/broadcast value and disallowed to be filtered.

Thanks.