WLC Mobility Groups - Compatible Controller Versions

[Paul_Yarwood]

Hi All,

Hopefully an easy question.

I have an existing 5508 running 7.0.116.0.

We have now purchased a second 5508 which needs to be joined to a common mobility group. When I booted the second 5508, I discovered its been shipped from our supplier with a Version 6 image.

I've configured both accordingly, but cannot establish a Mobility Group between them (I've put both on the same subnet temporarily to eliminate any potential for connectivity issues, there are no firewalls or packet filters between the devices). ICMP Ping's work successfully but Mping and Eping between the controllers always fail.

Is it a valid configuration to establish a mobility group between controllers on a mix of V6 and V7?

If it's not do I have any legal options for upgrading the OS on it through Cisco without further payment (we don't have a smartnet contract on it), or do I stick it back in the box and kick the supplier about it?

Thanks,

Paul

[Scott Fella]

You should just upgrade the WLC to the same code version. In any case, they are compatible. See the matrix in this link

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/controller/5500/tech_notes/Wireless_Software_Compatibility_Matrix.html#wp102617

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[patoberli]

I might get in a similar situation. We currently have two WiSM with 7.0.240.0 release. I might add a temporary 5508 controller, but with maybe 8.0 release. I am thinking of this, as I don't anymore want to buy old accesspoints. This controller would be only temporary until a successor will be released. This controller would be used by 10-20 APs, until the new controllers are released.

Would layer 2/3 mobility work between those two controller software/models? RRM and other features would also be nice, but mobility on my WPA2-Enterprise AES secured SSID is a requirement.

I am unsure about the term "Inter-Release Controller Mobility (IRCM)", does this mean between 7.0.x and 7.0.y or does that mean 7.0.x and 8.0.x?

[Scott Fella]

It is supported between v7.x and v8.0 as shown on the matrix.

Scott

**Please rate helpful post**

[zulqurnain]

Hi

I am running into the same problem , did anyone get to a resolution on this

[patoberli]

We haven't yet upgraded, but we soon might. Then I will test this out, but based on that matrix it should simply work. I just guess that you should configure the controllers more or less the same.

[George Stefanick]

They should work. Are you sure you added the mobility groups correctly. Can you take a screen shot of both controllers mobility groups and post it ?

__________________________________________________________________________________________
"Satisfaction does not come from knowing the solution, it comes from knowing why." - Rosalind Franklin
__________________________________________________________________________________________
‎"I'm in a serious relationship with my Wi-Fi. You could say we have a connection."

[Scott Fella]

Just remember... Mping and Eping are your best friends when it comes to mobility:)

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[George Stefanick]

No no .. CSC is your best friend when you have issues when it comes to mobility !

__________________________________________________________________________________________
"Satisfaction does not come from knowing the solution, it comes from knowing why." - Rosalind Franklin
__________________________________________________________________________________________
‎"I'm in a serious relationship with my Wi-Fi. You could say we have a connection."

[Scott Fella]

Well that's too George:)

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Paul_Yarwood]

Thanks for the replies guys.

I'm a little confused as to why it won't bring up the connection in that case.

Both devices have management interfaces on the same VLAN (Controller A = 192.168.1.10 and Controller B = 192.168.1.11).

Both have the VIP set to 1.1.1.1

The default Mobility Group names on the controllers are presently different, however changing them to match did not make any difference.

One each Controller I've added a Group Member using the MAC address and IP Address of the Management interface on the opposite controller in a group named Mobile1. I've checked multiple times that the MAC address and IP addresses are correct and that the group name is identical (including case).

On both controllers the Mobility Group Status is: Control and Data Path Down.

If I enable Mobility Handoff Debugging (debug mobility handoff enable) and try and mping from either device I get the following output:

Controller A

*Jan 15 07:04:52.277: Mismatched Mobility Group ID: 4c0bde04 65e1a65c 19295328 6eb77ef4 from 192.168.10.11, dropping, hdr->type 20

Controller B

*mmListen: Jan 15 11:05:27.826: Mismatched Mobility Group ID: 9e345b57 6fb4fc0d 236e0b1d 53e1da81 from 192.168.1.10, dropping, hdr->type 20

The Mobility Statistics Screen on the Monitor Page of the GUI's logs an RX error for each of the 3 mping packets recieved.

Sending Eping's between the two doesnt appear to generate an output, presumably as the tunnel isnt established.

Any idea's what might be causing this?

[George Stefanick]

Can u take a screen shot of both mob groups and post it

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Scott Fella]

I don't think you setup the mobility group properly. I would look at that again. The errors you posting references that.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

[Paul_Yarwood]

Hi George,

Please see below screen shots from the two controllers.

Controller A

Controller B

Anything obvious stand out to you?

Thanks,

Paul

[George Stefanick]

Yes, you group names ..

Controller A you see name LOCAL GROUP ..

Controller B You see name Mobile 1 ...

Make them the same name ...

__________________________________________________________________________________________
"Satisfaction does not come from knowing the solution, it comes from knowing why." - Rosalind Franklin
__________________________________________________________________________________________
‎"I'm in a serious relationship with my Wi-Fi. You could say we have a connection."