OK- you have far fewer APs than us- but we are on your code. I don’t want to muddy the waters and prejudice your conclusions as you really need TAC to work you through this minefield. But know that there are bugs and circumstances related to some shared resource between 802.1X and CAPWAP processes on the 8540, but the things I have read tend to be for higher AP counts. Whether any of this might apply to you, only the right debug will show.
Good luck- Lee Lee Badman | Network Architect Certified Wireless Network Expert (#200) Information Technology Services 206 Machinery Hall 120 Smith Drive Syracuse, New York 13244 t 315.443.3003 f 315.443.4325 e [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> w its.syr.edu SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY syr.edu From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark Duling Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 4:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WIRELESS-LAN] spurious cpi report of mass AP disassociation >> Out of curiosity- how many APs, clients (in general) and are you doing >> 802.1X? It's roughly 250 APs out of approximately 1k, so about 1/4 our the total APs. Yes, we are doing 802.1x. We don't have a large set of mobility groups, so it doesn't sound like CSCva66176. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 12:03 PM, Lee H Badman <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Out of curiosity- how many APs, clients (in general) and are you doing 802.1X? Lee Badman | Network Architect Certified Wireless Network Expert (#200) Information Technology Services 206 Machinery Hall 120 Smith Drive Syracuse, New York 13244 t 315.443.3003<tel:(315)%20443-3003> f 315.443.4325<tel:(315)%20443-4325> e [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> w its.syr.edu<http://its.syr.edu> SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY syr.edu<http://syr.edu> From: The EDUCAUSE Wireless Issues Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Mark Duling Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 2:48 PM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [WIRELESS-LAN] spurious cpi report of mass AP disassociation We're using Cisco 8540 on code 8.2.151.0. Last week CPI reported a great number of simultaneous AP disassociations and then reassociation. CPI shows all the events had the exact same timestamp right down to the hundredth second. It was just a single event. But I can find no event preceding it that would cause such a thing. No preceding controller errors that I can see. At least a hundred APs were on the list. The APs weren't the same type or in the same buildings. I can find no common thing at all about it. No one called in to report any issues. I would think if they really did drop those on an affected AP would have noticed. Only one AP in the building housing IT was on the report, so perhaps not surprising that none of us noticed anything. Has anyone out there seen anything like this? Aside from the unknown cause, is it possible for disassocation and reassociation happened fast enough that users wouldn't see any serious disruption if only doing stateless stuff? I'd have trouble believing the controller would report AP drops that didn't happen. ********** 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. ********** 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.
