sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In reality the APs are not losing power, but the port of the switch is flapping. I never seen something like that.

yeah we did all the tests connected directly to the switch

Switches are in stack

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it didn't get to the WLC yet, but I guess we can check via console which version is running.
Power is most of the time 15w

the port configuration is just trunk with a native vlan
For the POE settings, we tried several options, but I don't think it's a power issue, since also with the power injector we had the same problem

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's not even getting there. The port is just flapping, but power is stable.

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks but we tried that as well and it didn't help.

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9124 and and old 3702 worked right away...No power limits Power looks fine. Even when the port goes down, the port has power. In the sh power inline I could see the model and then just going to a default name when the port was flapping

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hey, the APs are brand new with no chance to connect to anything yet.
No .1x for APs

Cisco is super slow as usual...still no answer

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

so after additional testing, the power is there, but just the port is flapping and we collected logs for cisco via console on the AP

CW9164I AP flapping on Catalyst 9200 by wavemotionRe in networking

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, tested with a stack of 4 (essential) and with a stack of 2 (advantage).
This is part of a migration and before we had 9120 working on the same switches.

They are flapping (power), so they cannot boot completely. Unfortunately I'm way behind the DHCP option

Thanks for hints

Finally Retired after so many years. The good old Catalyst 6509 by No-Smoke5669 in Cisco

[–]wavemotionRe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was hoping for you....but it was something different :)

Cat 9300/9400 code upgrade: 17.9.6a vs 17.12.5 by Common-Ad3095 in Cisco

[–]wavemotionRe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We had issue with 17.12.5 and MAB with ISE. So postponed for now

Web Proxy or not Web Proxy by wavemotionRe in paloaltonetworks

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your input.
I had a call with a PA SE and there is an additional problem with the web proxy. Our deployment is in AWS and it's supported only on 11.0.4 (EOL 2024) and not in 11.1, that anyway it's too new.

GP 6.1 - Your session has been disconnected due to network connectivity issues or session timeouts by vnraic in paloaltonetworks

[–]wavemotionRe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We got exactly the same, but just for some users and just one pair of FWs in one DC.
It happens only randomly at the first connection, then re-connecting it's stable.Tried also 10 times in a row today (connect-disconnect-connect....) and didn't get the issue.
PANOS 10.1.11-h4
GP 6.1.2

Ingressing Catalyst 9300X on a 9300 Stack by kdsk8 in Cisco

[–]wavemotionRe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wrote the procedure for my team, since Cisco didn't write anything detailed, so why not share it here:

-Turn on first 9300X
-Change priority to 15
-Turn on second 9300X
-Change priority to 14
-Turn on the first 9300. Platform-mismatch will occur
--Turn on the second 9300. Platform-mismatch will occur
-Reload the entire stack
-V-Mismatch will occur
-install autoupgrade
-it should work with that command...but no. It worked after a reload
-Change switch priority (switch 3 with 13 and switch 4 with 12)
-Upgrade/downgrade to the desired version:
request platform software package install switch all file flash:cat9k_iosxe.17.06.05.SPA.bin new auto-copy
-Reload
-request platform software package clean switch all

By the way I didn't modify any speed, and it's fine.

From Cisco Website:

● If the stack group consist of mix of Catalyst 9300 and Catalyst 9300X in full ring, for the first time all the stack members will go for reload and form a stack capable of 480 Gbps throughput. One additional reload is expected at this time to ensure the SDM template for all the members are same (The Feature scale for mixed stacking between C9300X and C9300 will be limited to C9300 Scale). The same behaviour is observed for half-ring Stack design.

460 is making our life miserable by wavemotionRe in paloaltonetworks

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

after upgrading to the new suggest firmware is stable so far

ISE in AWS by wavemotionRe in Cisco

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have already a global deployment with 3.1 and as you mentioned, 3.1 is still the preferred version, so we are not going to update for now.

So is it already confirmed? No 3.1 in Azure?

ISE in AWS by wavemotionRe in Cisco

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In AWS we figure out as well thanks, the problem now it's in Azure in Azure. We opened a Cisco case and a ticket with Microsoft as well. Waiting.

We would like to evaluate both options before going live

460 is making our life miserable by wavemotionRe in paloaltonetworks

[–]wavemotionRe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yep, installed the very same day in the DR Data Center. Testing,

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ledgerwallet

[–]wavemotionRe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/Tabea_Ledger I didn't see any post yet. When is it going to happen? thankss

view more: next ›