WoL over 802.1X with Vlan Assignement
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-28-2006 02:27 AM - edited 07-03-2021 01:25 PM
Hello
I have a switch 3560, and an ACS v4
In phase of test i have an infrastructure with 802.1X PEAP with automatic VLAN assignation by the ACS according to the Machine.
My question is:
it possible to implement Wake One Lan on 802.1x with a assigantion of vlan not statics (i.e. without use of command Switchport access vlan XXX)
PS: if I do in statics the VLAN on a port Wake one Lan work without Pb with 802.1X
- Labels:
-
Wireless Security

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-28-2006 08:25 AM
This is possible, with or without WoL configured on the port.
It's also possible with or without the "switchport access vlan XXX" command. But FYI, if you remove that command, then you effectively have an implicit "switchport access vlan 1" command. That's OK though, since a port is in no VLAN until 802.1X completes on the port, so if you dynamically assign the VLAN via RADIUS, it'll work fine.
We've seen some customers attempt to use VLAN-1 in this manner for an extra security blanket, since standing best-practices of not trunking/routing/using VLAN-1 may already apply.
Hope this helps,
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-28-2006 08:51 AM
In fact when you type "switchport access vlan 69" on a interface and "dot1x control-direction in" and all other command to activate 802.1X, you can use Wake on Lan on the machine connect to the interface and it's work fine.
However when you disable "Switchport access vlan 69" to let ACS attribute VLAN69 for interface who are connect to the PC, the Wake On Lan don't work Fine.
I say that if you use VMPS, the Wake On Lan don't work and perhaps it's the same idea.
In fact i have read on doc and test that Wake on Lan Work with 802.1X and Static assign VLAN but i want to say if it work with 802.1X and Dynamic assign VLAN
If you wan't detail I can give you
Thank for All

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-28-2006 01:30 PM
Please feel free to share details, or a TAC case .. b/c this sounds like a software bug. From an 802.1X and/or WoL perspective, there should be no difference in VLAN1 vs. VLAN69, which is effectively what your decription dictates.
Thanks,
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-28-2006 11:27 PM
Ok, on interface 0/19 :
Switchport mode access
speed 100
duplex Full
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x port-control auto
dot1x control-direction in
spanning-tree portfast
The software use is like "wolcmd" with configuration of
MAC address of the PC
IP of the PC (give by DHCP reservation)
Subnet mask
Remote port Number : 7
The authentication on ACS work fine and on ACS whe have this field
[064] Tunnel-Type
value : VLAN
[065] Tunnel-Medium-Type
Value : 802.
[Tunnel-Private-Group-ID]
Value : 69
In fact, the only difference between config is assignation static or dynamic of VLAN
I don't know if this what you wan't
thanks

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
12-29-2006 09:18 AM
Forget VLAN Assignment for a minute, since it would be well after WoL anyway.
So you're saying with this config:
***
switchport mode access
switchport access vlan 69
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x port-control auto
dot1x control-direction in
spanning-tree portfast
***
That WoL works, but WoL doesn't work with this config:
***
switchport mode access
switchport access vlan 1
dot1x pae authenticator
dot1x port-control auto
dot1x control-direction in
spanning-tree portfast
***
Is that right? If so, you need a TAC case, since this looks like a bug to me ;-).
Thanks,
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
01-17-2007 12:42 AM
Hello
I have a solution.
You can do this by using NAT and for me it's work
Thank you for your help
