Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
All, We found our client - 2802i AP problem. They are all related to a memory leak in the 2802 AP : (This problem has taken us crazy for 6 months!) CSCve55196 COS AP not forwarding DHCP OFFER/ACK on its radio downstream CSCvd64819 AP-COS drops downstream DHCP; kills wpcpd (reason: OOM); kernel panic (they will be deduplicated) CSCvd23175 2800/3800 WCPD memory leak observed And our flash issue is fixed in : CSCuz47559 error saving config file happens on multiple 2702 So version 8.2.154.62 will fix all our issues (and is now available for testing) Tonight, I will activate this version for 3100 different access point of which 66x are AP-COS (2802) I hope our wireless network will become stable again after this upgrade Regards Gertjan Scharloo ICT Consultant _ Universiteit van Amsterdam | Hogeschool van Amsterdam ICT Services Leeuwenburg | kamer A9.44 Weesperzijde 190 | 1097 DZ Amsterdam +31 (0)20 525 4885 Mobiel : +31(0) 61013-5880 www.uva.nl uva.nl/profile/g.scharloo Beschikbaar : Ma | - | Wo | Do | Vr | From: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Charles Francis <charles.fran...@duke.edu> Reply-To: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Saturday, 8 July 2017 at 22:29 To: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs We did have some client disconnect issues on WISM2’s and 5508’s where certain client traffic seemed to be blackholed. The only way to get people working again was to associate to a different SSID and then go back. Once we changed our QoS from Platinum or Gold to Silver, the issues seem to have subsided. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Jason Watts <jwa...@pratt.edu> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 8:33 AM To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs *** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. *** Well that is troubling. We are about to deploy around 200 of them. Is anyone else experiencing similar issues to this on 2802's? -- Jason Watts Pratt Institute, Academic Computing Senior Network Administrator Sent from my iPhone On Jul 6, 2017, at 7:23 AM, Scharloo, Gertjan <g.schar...@uva.nl> wrote: Hi Bryan, The University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences are currently using 2802i Access Points since December 1, 2016 to gain experience with this new type of Access Point. (Only on the 9th and 10th floors) The access points have been problematic from the start, and still there are complaints from end users that we can’t solve or identify properly. The same users can work without problems on other floors where we have 2702i Access Points stationed in this property. We are currently dealing with client disconnections on the floors/buildings with AP2802i. This disconnection occurs 2-3 hours, sometimes more frequently. Many of our clients are effected. Another issue which is subpart of this issue is: the clients are connected but there is no traffic flow. These clients have laptop from different vendors for example Dell, Apple with different (updated) drivers. -The users stay connected but cannot transmit any data. Two months ago, we have started a new software release 8.2.154.17 and we were hoping to fix our client disconnect issue only with the 2802i AP, but the problem became worse. We have started a Tac CASE (severity 2) Regards Gertjan Scharloo ICT Consultant _ Universiteit van Amsterdam | Hogeschool van Amsterdam ICT Services Leeuwenburg | kamer A9.44 Weesperzijde 190 | 1097 DZ Amsterdam +31 (0)20 525 4885 Mobiel : +31(0) 61013-5880 www.uva.nl uva.nl/profile/g.scharloo Beschikbaar : Ma | - | Wo | Do | Vr | From: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Bryan Ward <bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu> Reply-To: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Wednesday, 5 July 2017 at 18:07 To: wireless-lan <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs Couldn’t find a recent discussion on the list archives, so I’ll ask my question. For those of you that have Cisco 3800 series APs in production, how have they been working for you recently? We currently purchase 3700 series APs as our standard for new installs and replacement of our 3500 series APs, but are now considering switching to the 3800 series. I heard there were a lot of issues with them at first, but was wondering if th
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
We have some 3800's that we are getting online shortly. Testing has gone very well for them running 8.3 code on a test controller, as others have noted. Client performance is fantastic. Someone noted the power draw concern, which is a big one for us to take into account. Each AP draws/reserves 30W of power from the switch--essentially double that of prior generation APs. Keep that in mind for your switching infrastructure, as we are going to be pushing the limits of our 4200W PSU's on our 4500E chassis these are going to be running on when you couple that additional power draw with IP phones, cameras, and the like. They are also physically far heavier than prior generations as well, and do not fit enclosures built for prior generation APs like the 3700/3600/3500 all fit the same mold. Britton Anderson <blanders...@alaska.edu> | Lead Network Communications Specialist | University of Alaska <http://www.alaska.edu/oit> | 907.450.8250 <(907)%20450-8250> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu > wrote: > Do you have controllers running different (older) code? If so, on the > controller with the 2800s, what controller is the RF group leader, and is > the leader the same for 2.4 and 5? For the new WAPs, it’s critical that the > RF leader be the controller(s) running the latest code, and that it’s the > same for 2.4 and 5. > > > > Jeff > > > > *From: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" < > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Alan D Wang < > aw...@binghamton.edu> > *Reply-To: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" < > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > *Date: *Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:49 AM > > *To: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUS > E.EDU> > *Subject: *Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 > Series APs > > > > We are beginning to upgrade several of our larger dorm buildings with > 2800s and haven't had scene any major problems with code (running 8.2.141.0 > with plans to upgrade to 8.3.121.0) or power (2960S series switches). One > concern that I have at the moment is that almost every unit that was > replaced last week is still using channel 36 on dot11 radio 1. Has any one > else seen this behavior? The units that are currently running are joined > to a controller that as an AP group setup for these units (and all others > that will be installed in that dorm community) and have an RF profile > assigned to them. FRA is also enabled on this controller. > > > > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jake Snyder <jsnyde...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The mGig consideration is a switching one for sure, because switches you > buy today will likely see another evolution of wifi AP at some point. > > > > For the 3800 as an AP. It takes just more than 100 MHz of spectrum to > break the 1Gbps barrier. For most of us, that just isn't practical in most > modern density deployments. Sure you can do it in a lab setting, I've done > it myself. But I haven't seen a production environment that could > necessitate more than 1Gbps to the AP today. > > > > The real question is the module. Especially with AP extensions (APEx) > being published on devnet. The DC power connector and enhanced cellular > coexistence are reasons to look at 3800 IMHO. > > > > For new construction, run the extra cable. The cost of the cable pull is > dramatically smaller during construction. Maybe you use it for a digital > projector, IP clock, IP speaker, or something we haven't dreamed up yet. > I've never had someone say "I wish I had pulled fewer cables." > > > > As far as lag on 2800. Supposedly you have to load-balance on src-dst-port > otherwise you don't get above 1Gbps. Plus the config is a PITA unless you > have a switch that supports the auto-lag feature. I worry that you are > getting into additional operational overhead when you won't be above 1Gbps > anyway. > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu> > wrote: > > On the 3800-series decision point (and multi-gig): > > > >- New construction – Don’t need to run a 2nd Ethernet cable to the WAP >(spend that money to uplift to the 3800). You also won’t need a 2nd >Ethernet port, and a single multi-gig port is less than the cost of two 1Gb >ports. >- New WAPs with new Switches – this is also common given the push for >UPoE. Again, like new construction, if you think running a 2nd >Ethernet is within the life-cycle of these switches e.g. 7-10 years, go >multi-gig and the 3800’s. > > > >
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
Do you have controllers running different (older) code? If so, on the controller with the 2800s, what controller is the RF group leader, and is the leader the same for 2.4 and 5? For the new WAPs, it’s critical that the RF leader be the controller(s) running the latest code, and that it’s the same for 2.4 and 5. Jeff From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Alan D Wang <aw...@binghamton.edu> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 at 5:49 AM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs We are beginning to upgrade several of our larger dorm buildings with 2800s and haven't had scene any major problems with code (running 8.2.141.0 with plans to upgrade to 8.3.121.0) or power (2960S series switches). One concern that I have at the moment is that almost every unit that was replaced last week is still using channel 36 on dot11 radio 1. Has any one else seen this behavior? The units that are currently running are joined to a controller that as an AP group setup for these units (and all others that will be installed in that dorm community) and have an RF profile assigned to them. FRA is also enabled on this controller. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jake Snyder <jsnyde...@gmail.com<mailto:jsnyde...@gmail.com>> wrote: The mGig consideration is a switching one for sure, because switches you buy today will likely see another evolution of wifi AP at some point. For the 3800 as an AP. It takes just more than 100 MHz of spectrum to break the 1Gbps barrier. For most of us, that just isn't practical in most modern density deployments. Sure you can do it in a lab setting, I've done it myself. But I haven't seen a production environment that could necessitate more than 1Gbps to the AP today. The real question is the module. Especially with AP extensions (APEx) being published on devnet. The DC power connector and enhanced cellular coexistence are reasons to look at 3800 IMHO. For new construction, run the extra cable. The cost of the cable pull is dramatically smaller during construction. Maybe you use it for a digital projector, IP clock, IP speaker, or something we haven't dreamed up yet. I've never had someone say "I wish I had pulled fewer cables." As far as lag on 2800. Supposedly you have to load-balance on src-dst-port otherwise you don't get above 1Gbps. Plus the config is a PITA unless you have a switch that supports the auto-lag feature. I worry that you are getting into additional operational overhead when you won't be above 1Gbps anyway. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu<mailto:j...@scrippscollege.edu>> wrote: On the 3800-series decision point (and multi-gig): * New construction – Don’t need to run a 2nd Ethernet cable to the WAP (spend that money to uplift to the 3800). You also won’t need a 2nd Ethernet port, and a single multi-gig port is less than the cost of two 1Gb ports. * New WAPs with new Switches – this is also common given the push for UPoE. Again, like new construction, if you think running a 2nd Ethernet is within the life-cycle of these switches e.g. 7-10 years, go multi-gig and the 3800’s. Last but not least. If you use Cisco switches, there are some wonderful bundle deals with Cisco WAPs and switches that make it hard not to go 3800/multi-gig. Jeff From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu<mailto:wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> on behalf of Charles Francis <charles.fran...@duke.edu<mailto:charles.fran...@duke.edu>> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu<mailto:wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Date: Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 1:37 PM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu<mailto:wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu>" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU<mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs Hi Bryan, A few notes from our experience and our deployments recently. 8.2MR5 is a necessity if you are running X800 series AP’s. We had a slew of issues with 1810, 2800, 3800 AP’s when they first came out, but they are pretty solid now. We ended up going with 1810’s in our dorm’s to provide higher density, but also provide wired ports. The 1810’s are AC wave2, no CleanAir and only 2x2 but at the price point, it was worthwhile to get the coverage. We also started to put them into sma
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
We are beginning to upgrade several of our larger dorm buildings with 2800s and haven't had scene any major problems with code (running 8.2.141.0 with plans to upgrade to 8.3.121.0) or power (2960S series switches). One concern that I have at the moment is that almost every unit that was replaced last week is still using channel 36 on dot11 radio 1. Has any one else seen this behavior? The units that are currently running are joined to a controller that as an AP group setup for these units (and all others that will be installed in that dorm community) and have an RF profile assigned to them. FRA is also enabled on this controller. On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 1:16 AM, Jake Snyder <jsnyde...@gmail.com> wrote: > The mGig consideration is a switching one for sure, because switches you > buy today will likely see another evolution of wifi AP at some point. > > For the 3800 as an AP. It takes just more than 100 MHz of spectrum to > break the 1Gbps barrier. For most of us, that just isn't practical in most > modern density deployments. Sure you can do it in a lab setting, I've done > it myself. But I haven't seen a production environment that could > necessitate more than 1Gbps to the AP today. > > The real question is the module. Especially with AP extensions (APEx) > being published on devnet. The DC power connector and enhanced cellular > coexistence are reasons to look at 3800 IMHO. > > For new construction, run the extra cable. The cost of the cable pull is > dramatically smaller during construction. Maybe you use it for a digital > projector, IP clock, IP speaker, or something we haven't dreamed up yet. > I've never had someone say "I wish I had pulled fewer cables." > > As far as lag on 2800. Supposedly you have to load-balance on src-dst-port > otherwise you don't get above 1Gbps. Plus the config is a PITA unless you > have a switch that supports the auto-lag feature. I worry that you are > getting into additional operational overhead when you won't be above 1Gbps > anyway. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu> > wrote: > > On the 3800-series decision point (and multi-gig): > > > >- New construction – Don’t need to run a 2nd Ethernet cable to the WAP >(spend that money to uplift to the 3800). You also won’t need a 2nd >Ethernet port, and a single multi-gig port is less than the cost of two 1Gb >ports. >- New WAPs with new Switches – this is also common given the push for >UPoE. Again, like new construction, if you think running a 2nd >Ethernet is within the life-cycle of these switches e.g. 7-10 years, go >multi-gig and the 3800’s. > > > > Last but not least. If you use Cisco switches, there are some wonderful > bundle deals with Cisco WAPs and switches that make it hard not to go > 3800/multi-gig. > > > > Jeff > > > > > > *From: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV. > EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Charles Francis <charles.fran...@duke.edu> > *Reply-To: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV. > EDUCAUSE.EDU> > *Date: *Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 1:37 PM > *To: *"wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV. > EDUCAUSE.EDU> > *Subject: *Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 > Series APs > > > > Hi Bryan, > > A few notes from our experience and our deployments recently. > > > > 8.2MR5 is a necessity if you are running X800 series AP’s. We had a slew > of issues with 1810, 2800, 3800 AP’s when they first came out, but they are > pretty solid now. > > > > We ended up going with 1810’s in our dorm’s to provide higher density, but > also provide wired ports. The 1810’s are AC wave2, no CleanAir and only > 2x2 but at the price point, it was worthwhile to get the coverage. We also > started to put them into smaller team and study rooms. > > > > We weighed the 3800 and 2800 and settled on 2802i’s as our standard going > forward. Although they didn’t support mGig, we can use both ports and push > 2gig if needed. We do have a few 3800’s deployed but no mGig switches at > this. From what we can see, we are bursting to around 200mb today at the > switchport and that’s in dense areas. The 3800’s seemed interesting, but > the only difference we could see was the mGig. > > > > We peaked out around 80 clients on a 3800 in the library during finals > with no reported performance issues. > > > > > > > > *From: *The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv < > WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Br
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
The mGig consideration is a switching one for sure, because switches you buy today will likely see another evolution of wifi AP at some point. For the 3800 as an AP. It takes just more than 100 MHz of spectrum to break the 1Gbps barrier. For most of us, that just isn't practical in most modern density deployments. Sure you can do it in a lab setting, I've done it myself. But I haven't seen a production environment that could necessitate more than 1Gbps to the AP today. The real question is the module. Especially with AP extensions (APEx) being published on devnet. The DC power connector and enhanced cellular coexistence are reasons to look at 3800 IMHO. For new construction, run the extra cable. The cost of the cable pull is dramatically smaller during construction. Maybe you use it for a digital projector, IP clock, IP speaker, or something we haven't dreamed up yet. I've never had someone say "I wish I had pulled fewer cables." As far as lag on 2800. Supposedly you have to load-balance on src-dst-port otherwise you don't get above 1Gbps. Plus the config is a PITA unless you have a switch that supports the auto-lag feature. I worry that you are getting into additional operational overhead when you won't be above 1Gbps anyway. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 8, 2017, at 9:54 PM, Jeffrey D. Sessler <j...@scrippscollege.edu> > wrote: > > On the 3800-series decision point (and multi-gig): > > New construction – Don’t need to run a 2nd Ethernet cable to the WAP (spend > that money to uplift to the 3800). You also won’t need a 2nd Ethernet port, > and a single multi-gig port is less than the cost of two 1Gb ports. > New WAPs with new Switches – this is also common given the push for UPoE. > Again, like new construction, if you think running a 2nd Ethernet is within > the life-cycle of these switches e.g. 7-10 years, go multi-gig and the 3800’s. > > Last but not least. If you use Cisco switches, there are some wonderful > bundle deals with Cisco WAPs and switches that make it hard not to go > 3800/multi-gig. > > Jeff > > > From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Charles Francis > <charles.fran...@duke.edu> > Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Date: Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 1:37 PM > To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series > APs > > Hi Bryan, > A few notes from our experience and our deployments recently. > > 8.2MR5 is a necessity if you are running X800 series AP’s. We had a slew of > issues with 1810, 2800, 3800 AP’s when they first came out, but they are > pretty solid now. > > We ended up going with 1810’s in our dorm’s to provide higher density, but > also provide wired ports. The 1810’s are AC wave2, no CleanAir and only 2x2 > but at the price point, it was worthwhile to get the coverage. We also > started to put them into smaller team and study rooms. > > We weighed the 3800 and 2800 and settled on 2802i’s as our standard going > forward. Although they didn’t support mGig, we can use both ports and push > 2gig if needed. We do have a few 3800’s deployed but no mGig switches at > this. From what we can see, we are bursting to around 200mb today at the > switchport and that’s in dense areas. The 3800’s seemed interesting, but the > only difference we could see was the mGig. > > We peaked out around 80 clients on a 3800 in the library during finals with > no reported performance issues. > > > > From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Bryan Ward > <bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu> > Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv > <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:45 AM > To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs > > *** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or > click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. *** > Thanks everyone for the good quick feedback. > I think we’ll be making the switch to the 3800s – most likely the 3802E model > as our existing APs are mainly wall-mounted. The E model has the > advantage(?) over the I model in that only the I model supports macro/micro > cell, which seems to be the cause of FRA issues in non-dense deployments. We > certainly don’t have very many dense deployments. > > The
Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs
On the 3800-series decision point (and multi-gig): * New construction – Don’t need to run a 2nd Ethernet cable to the WAP (spend that money to uplift to the 3800). You also won’t need a 2nd Ethernet port, and a single multi-gig port is less than the cost of two 1Gb ports. * New WAPs with new Switches – this is also common given the push for UPoE. Again, like new construction, if you think running a 2nd Ethernet is within the life-cycle of these switches e.g. 7-10 years, go multi-gig and the 3800’s. Last but not least. If you use Cisco switches, there are some wonderful bundle deals with Cisco WAPs and switches that make it hard not to go 3800/multi-gig. Jeff From: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Charles Francis <charles.fran...@duke.edu> Reply-To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Saturday, July 8, 2017 at 1:37 PM To: "wireless-lan@listserv.educause.edu" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs Hi Bryan, A few notes from our experience and our deployments recently. 8.2MR5 is a necessity if you are running X800 series AP’s. We had a slew of issues with 1810, 2800, 3800 AP’s when they first came out, but they are pretty solid now. We ended up going with 1810’s in our dorm’s to provide higher density, but also provide wired ports. The 1810’s are AC wave2, no CleanAir and only 2x2 but at the price point, it was worthwhile to get the coverage. We also started to put them into smaller team and study rooms. We weighed the 3800 and 2800 and settled on 2802i’s as our standard going forward. Although they didn’t support mGig, we can use both ports and push 2gig if needed. We do have a few 3800’s deployed but no mGig switches at this. From what we can see, we are bursting to around 200mb today at the switchport and that’s in dense areas. The 3800’s seemed interesting, but the only difference we could see was the mGig. We peaked out around 80 clients on a 3800 in the library during finals with no reported performance issues. From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Bryan Ward <bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu> Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Date: Friday, July 7, 2017 at 8:45 AM To: "WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs *** Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. *** Thanks everyone for the good quick feedback. I think we’ll be making the switch to the 3800s – most likely the 3802E model as our existing APs are mainly wall-mounted. The E model has the advantage(?) over the I model in that only the I model supports macro/micro cell, which seems to be the cause of FRA issues in non-dense deployments. We certainly don’t have very many dense deployments. The 2800s also do sound like they could work for us, however our eventual goal is to support mGig on our APs. We have the wiring for it already. There’s also been some renewed talk about adding cellular radio modules (but I don’t want to get into that discussion here). The issues mentioned all seem to have known workarounds or have been fixed in newer code, and a most of you reported having success with these than not. We’ll advise our helpdesk to ensure that people with WiFi connectivity issues following the upgrade are running the latest drivers on their device. AC has been around long enough now that I feel the manufacturers of client devices should have their drivers fixed. One further question – how many connected clients are your 3800s able to serve before having performance issues? Thanks again, -- Bryan Ward Network Engineer Dartmouth College Network Services 603-646-2245 bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu<mailto:bryan.w...@dartmouth.edu> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Bryan Ward Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 12:07 PM To: WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco 3800 Series APs This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2FLearnAboutSpoofing=02%7C01%7Cbryan.ward%40DARTMOUTH.EDU%7Cee93479de1804cb665f708d4c3bfed73%7C995b093648d640e5a31ebf689ec9446f%7C0%7C0%7C636348676476531730=b24U3946qfCbyzjrR%2FqBRpi58vyNPnb40nsactsqmAg%3D=0> Feedback<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2FSafetyTipsFeedback=02%7C01
