WiSM Issues

da.beaver · ‎06-27-2007

I have what I believe to be a unique issue with the 3 WiSM's that I have on my network. I have a 6509 running 12.2(18)SXF8 and (3) WiSM's running 4.0.217.0 inside of that single chassis. They are running fine, but sometimes, one of the controllers will become unreachable through the GUI. It will then be unreachable through telnet or through the service interface from the switch. I can still console to the WiSM, but that's it. It never drops any of the AP's it is supporting, but if I can't manage it, what good is it?

Any ideas?

b.julin · ‎07-02-2007

Have you tried using ssh? Note that sometimes you have to ssh twice because it will reject the first attempt with "telnet not allowed" for some reason, but it has never failed to answer for me.

da.beaver · ‎07-02-2007

I haven't, but I think the issue may be a little deeper than that due to the fact that I couldn't even get a response from the service interface. I should at least be able to get a telnet session started there. I'm not sure, I plugged into the console port and rebooted the controller from there and everything seems to be working fine since then.

I use to have problems with it even more than now when it was on 3.2.171.6 code, but the new code has truly minimized that.

sethgarnar · ‎07-03-2007

Have you considered going to the 4.1 release? Im running 3 WiSMs at 4.1 with 12.2(18)SXF7 without any issues on my 6509 and the same SW vers with two WiSM's in our 6513.

b.julin · ‎07-03-2007

Another possibility would be to undo the dhcp-based configuration that comes default and statically assign the maint interface addresses. I should have mentioned that's how I have mine set up.

da.beaver · ‎07-05-2007

I have considered going to 4.1, but I have heard some rather scary comments from both users and TAC engineers on the first release of 4.1. I am going to wait at least until the second release hits the streets I think. I hear there are some great additions to 4.1. Did you have to do the emergency release with 4.1?

As far as statically assigning the IP to the service interface, I will have to try that. That sounds like a great idea.