WLC LAP1131G - HREAP reboot

Unanswered Question
Sep 22nd, 2008


We've upgraded WLCs4400 to Release 5.0.168 since we've had bugs on WLAN Guest anchor Mobility...and all was working fine.

The customer then start to deploy singleradio AP - LAP1131G (before all the APs were dual-radio - A and G) and we've experienced the following strange behaviour:

Installing a factory LAP1131G, it had joined the controller and all was working fine in Local mode, then we've setup the LAP as H-REAP Node and from now the LAP was never been able to join the WLC: the only chance was to power off/on the device.

After this operation all was working fine the LAP was configured in H-REAP ...from this point all the modifications which impact this LAP requires a Power on/off to activate the changes and to been able to join the WLC

Any idea?



  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4 (2 ratings)
Scott Fella Mon, 09/22/2008 - 17:51

Most likely it is the 5.0 code.... not the best code to use. I recommend 4.1.185 unless you have 1252 ap's in which 4.1.130 works well. If you want to stick with the 5.0, then you should look into the 5.1 code which will fix a lot of your issues, but is still a new code.

oguarisco Tue, 09/23/2008 - 01:46


thanks for the useful info, as I've supposed...Did you find a bug ID on CCO?

The problem is that the WLC were on 4.1 and it's was impossible to have the control-path UP when defining the anchorship of a MG for the Guest WLAN...

So I've decided to upgrade to last Release of code 5.0 and as magic the control-path was immediately UP and the Guest WLAN was working perfectly...

Now I don't really want to downgrade...maybe I'll try to upgrade the Stand-by WLC to 5.1 and see what's the behaviour with single radio APs and with all the WLAN stuff already working (H-REAP, 802.1X,...)

I'll let you know...

Scott Fella Tue, 09/23/2008 - 03:49

Since you are on 5.0, I wouldn't downgrade to 4.1 since you will have to reconfigure the wlc since the configuration on the 4.2 and higher is xml and previous to the 4.2 it was bianary format. 4.2.130 is a pretty stable code that you can downgrade too. Also make sure the boot image is 4.2.112. Of course use the latest for that train you put on.


oguarisco Tue, 09/23/2008 - 04:08


yes you're right this would be the most problematic point...i'll try to upgrade to 5.1 and let you know il also this issue is solved (i hope ;-) )


This Discussion