Anybody else running 1810Ws on 8.2 running into the multiple devices per
port bug?

https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCux78581

We are deploying 8540's now running 8.2.160 with 1810s in a dorm hall that
we are refreshing and we were doing some testing this morning and ran into
this issue. First device recognized would get an IP address, but the second
device doesn't get an IP and the DHCP renewal on the first device would
then fail. ARP entries actually time out for the first learned device from
the router upstream so the AP completely locks up and stops forwarding
packets from those interfaces. Wireless still seems to function though.

With all of the discussion we've had on this list so far, I'm reluctant to
move up to 8.3 or 8.4 this close to semester start (2 weeks away) at this
point with all of our other testing going quite well on 8.2.160 for our
roll out, and I would rather not run mixed code versions. Anyone have any
experience with this bug in the wild, and how did you solve it?

Thanks,
Britton



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, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:46 AM, Hunter Fuller <hf0...@uah.edu> wrote:

> Yeah, it's intriguing to say the least. I will be testing in the lab.
> But on a more relevant note, we are not even on 8.5 at all in production.
> So... this is "pie in the sky" for us, for now.
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:09 AM Ciesinski, Nick <ciesi...@uww.edu> wrote:
>
>> I think it may be possible but there are a few hurdles to get over.
>> Cisco is using the catch all RADIUS attribute cisco-av-pair for the IPSK
>> which means the return value has to be formatted a certain way and not just
>> returning a PSK.
>>
>>
>> You first need to return a value of psk-mode=ascii which is easy since
>> its the same for every device.  Then you need to return the actual PSK
>> formatted as psk=<psk value>.  I have never seen a option within ISE (nor
>> ACS from my remembrance) to be able to build a value; it's ether all
>> manually typed in or all gotten from another source.  This would mean
>> actually storing "psk=<psk value>" as a attribute value in your
>> AD. Obviously not that hard to do if you are already writing your own
>> interface to get items into AD in the first place.
>>
>>
>> What I am unsure about is the ability to actually send back a value you
>> get from AD in the RADIUS return result.  While in ISE I can choose a AD
>> attribute from the selection criteria I don't know if it will actually send
>> the value for the particular user/device or just the attribute name from
>> AD.  I have seen ISE allow you to select things like AD:Objectname but
>> instead of it returning a value it returns "AD:Objectname".  It's been
>> years since I have used ACS but recall it working similar when building
>> your rules and return results.
>>
>>
>> It is worth testing in a lab to see what it will actually return, if its
>> the actual value from AD i'd say your good to go.
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv <
>> WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> on behalf of Hunter Fuller <
>> hf0...@uah.edu>
>> *Sent:* Friday, August 4, 2017 4:59 PM
>>
>> *To:* WIRELESS-LAN@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
>> *Subject:* Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] Cisco Code Version
>> You're right, I had misread that.
>>
>> Upon reading it that way, though, isn't that fine too? The person's
>> device reports its MAC, and then ACS or any other RADIUS just responds with
>> that MAC's owner's assigned PSK. If the device's MAC isn't known, we just
>> respond with an empty or garbage PSK to prevent them authenticating.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 4:13 PM Ciesinski, Nick <ciesi...@uww.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> I think your going to have the same problem with ACS as there is with
>>> ISE.  The controller does not send the PSK the user used to the RADIUS
>>> server for verification/validation.  Instead the RADIUS server will send
>>> back the PSK value the user/device should be using and the WLC does the
>>> verification/validation based on that return value.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Hunter Fuller <hf0...@uah.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yep - we use Cisco ACS, backed with AD. Should be able to just add
>>> another rule to our ruleset, then configure iPSK on the controllers. Then
>>> it would check the PSK against AD, as the machine password for the machine
>>> account. (We already make machine accounts for registered MACs of game
>>> consoles, etc.)
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:31 PM Joachim Tingvold <joac...@tingvold.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1 Aug 2017, at 17:33, Ciesinski, Nick wrote:
>>>> > While WLC 8.5 did add IPSK it is probably safe to say its rather
>>>> > worthless for most at this time.  For those who have used ISE if you
>>>> > watch the video on how they make IPSK work it isn’t feasible to give
>>>> > each of your users their own PSK key to connect to wireless.  The
>>>> > current implementation within ISE required no feature additions to ISE
>>>> > to make it work.  All they do is have a rule to classify a device
>>>> > and/or user and then send a particular PSK value that it should be
>>>> > using.  This is a 100% manual process  for each device and/or user as
>>>> > nothing is baked into ISE to have a user register their account or
>>>> > device(s) and be presented a PSK to use.
>>>>
>>>> IPSK *and* ISE might be "worthless" when combined, but IPSK in it self
>>>> is not (even in it's current implementation). The limitations you're
>>>> talking about is purely with ISE, and not IPSK.
>>>>
>>>> We use ClearPass, and we can easily query an SQL-server with MAC<->PSK
>>>> mappings, yielding unique PSKs based on MAC-adresses. This SQL DB could
>>>> be fed via whatever systems that already exists (CMDB or whatnot), or
>>>> you could spend an hour making a simple web-frontend.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing holding us back upgrading to 8.5 "right away" (only to
>>>> get IPSK) is the same concern Lee has; not touching it until MR3 or
>>>> similar, purely for stability reasons (-:
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Joachim
>>>>
>>>> **********
>>>> Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> --
>>> Hunter Fuller
>>> Network Engineer
>>> VBH Annex B-5
>>> +1 256 824 5331 <(256)%20824-5331>
>>>
>>> Office of Information Technology
>>> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
>>> Systems and Infrastructure
>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> --
>> Hunter Fuller
>> Network Engineer
>> VBH Annex B-5
>> +1 256 824 5331 <(256)%20824-5331>
>>
>> Office of Information Technology
>> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
>> Systems and Infrastructure
>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>
>> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
>> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
>> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>>
>> --
>
> --
> Hunter Fuller
> Network Engineer
> VBH Annex B-5
> +1 256 824 5331 <(256)%20824-5331>
>
> Office of Information Technology
> The University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Systems and Infrastructure
> ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE
> Constituent Group discussion list can be found at
> http://www.educause.edu/discuss.
>
>

**********
Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group 
discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

Reply via email to