SRW2024 no web gui

Answered Question
Nov 5th, 2009

We have a brand new SRW2024 v1.3. It came with firmware 1.2.2b on it. I can get the login screen, but after authenticating, I don't see any info. I get the html frame information, but the individual frame pages are not displayed. I tried this with Firefox 3.5, IE 8, and Google Chrome, and on 2 different computers. I found a reference to changing the username from "admin," but that didn't help. I tried adding 2 other username, but neither one of those worked either.

The console connection works great. This is what I used to try and re-load the same firmware. I don't believe I can use firmware 1.2.2 and 1.2.2b is the latest available from cisco.com.

I can't figure out why this wouldn't work. We have 3 more of these at another site, but I won't have access to those until next week. Is there anything else I can try?

Aaron

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 5 (1 ratings)
aaron.quinto Thu, 11/12/2009 - 05:48

First... Thank you very much! I'm now able to get in and see it.

The Workaround for anyone having the same issue:

Install IE Tab in Firefox.

https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/1419

Now for my complaint to Cisco/Linksys: Are you serious?

In order to get into this switch, I have to use Internet Explorer INSIDE OF Firefox. Really?! I would have rolled back to another version of firmware, but the SRW2024 v3.0 doesn't have any older firmware. Cisco/Linksys REALLY needs to fix this. These switches were supposed to be used as aggregate switches in the racks of a multi-million dollar operation, but now will probably be rejected because the WEB UI "can't be accessed." And this will probably affect our purchasing and definitely their purchasing of Linksys products in the future. I guarantee that we WILL NOT be ordering this line of switches for any other customers until the WEB UI has been fixed!

Sorry about the rant, but I felt that Cisco and Linksys need to realize the severity of this "bug."

Thank you.

satanovskyl Thu, 11/12/2009 - 07:36

Are you sure that IETab works with it fine even if IE8 is installed on the system?

aaron.quinto Thu, 11/12/2009 - 07:47

Yep. I have IE8 and Firefox 3.5 installed on my laptop and desktop. Both of them are able to get into the setup pages when IE Tab is installed.

And I just noticed that the switch is version 1.3, not 3.0. Sorry about that.

Message was edited by: aaron.quinto

satanovskyl Thu, 11/12/2009 - 08:16

Thank you. It's kinda weird, but it really works... but only with Firefox + IETab, not with the "standalone" IE8.

Anyway, it is really strange that no one of the Cisco developers comments on the topics...

Will be waiting (and hoping) for the firmware updrade.

alegalle Fri, 11/13/2009 - 18:40

As an engineer at the Small Business Support Center I would like to say that we completely understand your frusrtation with the SRW switches. Calls like this are not rare, and I have also found your work-around to perform very well. We are in the process of changing firmware on many of our switches to make the hardware perform better and also correct this very problem.

Please keep in mind that the SRW line of switches are really meant for a small business not a multi-million dollar enterprise. The SFE, SGE and ESW pro series switches are much better suited for those applications and because they do not rely on ActiveX we do not have such issues.

Again, we are completely aware of this problem and it is being taking seriously. This forum was made to allow our customers to provide feedback concerning their experiences being good or bad. Because you have posted and expressed your honest opinion (albeit, a little too honest :) ) this post has been noticed. Cisco is proud of its reputation and will not let problems like this to continue. I would ask anyone reading this post that is experiencing the same problem to call SBSC and start a case. This will allow us to officially track and document severity to assist in expiditng a fix.

SBSC: 1.866.606.1866

satanovskyl Mon, 11/16/2009 - 09:36

Thank you, but I do not live in the USA,

     and all the problems are explained in the mentioned forum threads lots of times by many people.

Why one should call some phone number?

Why do not you, Cisco workers, "start the case"  just relying on the posted information?

Isn't it enough for you to start correcting the problems?

Best regards, Leonid.

alegalle Mon, 11/16/2009 - 10:11

The problem is known to us and we are working on a fix. I would love to start a case, but the cases created are based on customer's names and serial numbers of the devices. I understand the frustration, and all I can say is that we are working on resolution. Like most companies, trouble tickets cannot be created just by word of mouth. Like I stated earlier, this post has been noticed and resolution is in the works. As am sure you are aware we have call centers throughout the world. If you would like a number for your region just let us know.

satanovskyl Mon, 11/16/2009 - 10:38

Thank you.

When I called Russian Cisco support they gave me the contact for Russian Linksys/Cisco support.

The contact told me, he doesn't know anything about Linksys switches (=)) and can't help, so I was just unable to open the ticket.

It's all really strange... hmmmm... it was about a month ago.

David Hornstein Sun, 11/22/2009 - 19:07

Try calling the appropriate phone number for the Small Business Support Center.  I hope the number you called is not the one listed in the following URL.

I am sad to hear that your call was not handled properly.  But the comments from that technician is inconsistent, they should understand very well SRW series products. .

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/support/tsd_cisco_small_business_support_center_contacts.html

regards Dave

MikeLight Tue, 11/24/2009 - 15:14

Thanks to aaron.quinto for the good catch - great work-around, dude!

I find that it makes perfect sense why this works:

IE8 does not work because it uses (abuses?) the TCP/IP stack of the PC on which it runs to opens lots of simultaneous
parallel connections to the SRW. Since SRW was not written to handle so many parallel connections, some or all of these
connections fail to retrieve the piece of the page they are trying to, and we get whatever remains.

This many-connections-at-once thing by IE8 is a gamble - when it works (i.e. you connect to a web-site running on a TCP/IP

stack that CANhandle this) gets you  a faster-seeimng IE8, but when it doesn't - well, you know...

When we use IEtab all the getting-of-objects is done the FF way, and only the rendering is done by IE - so if FF does

not overwhelm the SRW's TCP/IP, everything works.

Incidentally, The IE8 change is not just not backward compatible, it actually violates the HTTP standard, but hey, we're
Microsoft, we don't care. and to prove it, things will get even more "interesting" in IE9. Here's a quote from Gizmag.com:

" ... However, the specification that has left by far the most users disappointed with the current build of the browser
     its is Web standards compatibility. Acid3 is a well-recognized test suite for Internet browser encompassing many
    aspects of the Document Object Model and JavaScript language in one hundred small but comprehensive tests.
   With Safari, Opera and (in its latest build) Chrome all scoring a full 100/100 on the test, IE9 scored a very unimpressive 32/100."

In other words, we ain't seen nothing yet ...

(full article at :http://www.gizmag.com/early-ie9-preview/13416/ )

Mike

satanovskyl Tue, 11/24/2009 - 17:19

Sure, it explains the reason of the "bug". Hope, the new firmware works with Firefox/Safari/Lynx/etc and CLI interface gets extended functionality for the switch to be deservedly called "managed".

Since Miscrosoft is WELL known for its' immutable adherence to the standards =)) , it is not its' fault to write yet another incompatible browser (anybody expected anything else?...), but the fault of Linksys to make a web-applience working only on this platform. Hard to understand, why it was made this way...

.

aaron.quinto Wed, 11/25/2009 - 05:47

It doesn't look like it's the "max connections." I lowered my Firefox to 2 (since 2 is the maximum for IE7) and it still did the same thing. I think it's more that whoever wrote the HTML, ASP, CGI, or whichever language the web pages are in, ONLY tested it with IE7. That's one of the biggest gripes I had for years with web developers. They were only testing their webpages with IE, since 80% or more of the population was using it. I believe that's what's happened here. I think Linksys' developers had only built the webpages and tested them with IE7.

The reason I'm pointing this out is because if Linksys/Cisco is still reading this, it shouldn't be that much development work to fix it. You just have to figure out what's missing in the HTML files that get sent to the browser and add a little bit of code to finish building the web pages. I used to build web pages, and I found that IE was great for developers, because it didn't adhere to the letter. It filled in items that were missing (such as a command to close a table).

It looks like Microsoft now has tried to become more Web-compliant, and in turn, broken the old web sites. That's why IE8 has it's "backward-compatibility" mode. Although, even the backward-compatibility still doesn't work with the Linksys switches, so I'm not positive of what's missing.

I just took a look at the source of the web page (using IETab) and it looks like they rely heavily on Javascript. So now I'm thinking there's an issue with the Javascript not being compatible with something. Maybe there's some VBscript in there and that's why Firefox won't work. I'm not sure, but from what I've seen, I think it's something in the web page design.

Not arguing for or against anything or anyone. I'm just trying to add information to help Cisco/Linksys to fix the issue.

chrcoope Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:13

All,

Here is a document that I downloaded from the community recently downloaded. It was titled browserfix IE6 IE7 IE8.zip. I am going to paste it here with the additions/changes i a) feel it needs to clearly convey the changes and b) have tested personally.

Procedure for Internet Explorer 8

----------------------------------

The maximum number of connection per server should be limited to 1 The only problem is that MSIE 8 stores that setting on a different location compared to MSIE 7 and older versions.

According to this MS article:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282402

You have to follow procedure with version 8:

=============================================================

   1. Start Registry Editor.

   2. Locate the following key in the registry:

      HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\InternetExplorer\MAIN\FeatureControl\FEATURE_MAXCONNECTIONSPERSERVER (this key had to be created)

   3. On the Edit menu, point to New, click DWORD Value, and then add the following registry values:

      Value name: iexplore.exe

      Value data: 10 (i tested the value decimal 2, though in hex it would be input the same :))

      Base: Decimal

      Note set this value to the connection limit that you want for HTTP 1.1 connections. By setting the value to 10, you increase the connection limit to 10. (again, i tested the value 2)

   4. Locate and then click the following registry subkey:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\InternetExplorer\MAIN\FeatureControl\FEATURE_MAXCONNECTIONSPER1_0SERVER (this key had to be created)

   5. On the Edit menu, point to New, click DWORD Value, and then add the following registry values:

     Value name: iexplore.exe

      Value data: 10 (i tested the value 2)

      Base: Decimal

      Note set this value to the connection limit that you want for HTTP 1.1 connections. By setting the value to 10, you increase the connection limit to 10. (i tested the value 2)

   6. Exit Registry Editor.

=============================================================

It solves the web interface problem on this switch, obviously set the connections to 1 and not to 10.

I also had to restart my IE8 browser. Also note, this was tested on an SLM2048 however, I believe this will work on all the small business products.

Please let me know weather or not this works for you and/or if you test the connections when set for 10.

Thank you,

Christopher

MikeLight Wed, 11/25/2009 - 14:21

Aaron -

I think you are seeing two different issues.

1. It is a long-standing issue that SRW's do not work (usually) with Firefox.
   As you noted in another message, it seems to do with the Javascript/HTML content

2. As a sepearte issue, SRW's do not work well with IE8, since it uses too many connections
    at once.

I'd suggest either using IE7, or using IEtab inside Firefox - the Work-around you suggested. It seems
(I am guessing here) that you then get the small # of connections that FF uses to get the HTML
content to your PC, and the IE engine to render the content just brought in.

Good luck ...

Mike

adam.koncz Wed, 01/06/2010 - 03:43

Are there any new firmware since 1.2.2b (ls_106-12216.ros) available or under developement?

Thanks, A.

William Childs Thu, 01/07/2010 - 02:37

There are no new firmwares available as of yet, and we can't speculate on a release of a new version. Please check back periodically to make sure you have the latest version.

Are you experiencing the problem listed in this thread (or some other problem) or are you merely wanting a newer firmware?

Bill

adam.koncz Thu, 01/07/2010 - 02:54
Are you experiencing the problem listed in this thread (or some other problem) or are you merely wanting a newer firmware?

First part: yes, i've the same issue (blue screen only/fw1.2.2b SRW248G4), and "just" wondering if we can use the webgui to configure instead of booting windows, downgrade to IE6 or making modifications in registry. These are workarounds, but not solutions i guess. That's only why i asked for a newer fw.

Please check back periodically to make sure you have the latest version.

Ok.

William Childs Thu, 01/07/2010 - 23:40

When you say "webgui" I think you mean the console interface, since you are not able to actually see anything in the web interface other than the blue screen. You have limited capability of configuring any of these small business switches simply because the target market is small business. Typically, small businesses do not have capital to spend on full time IT staff that will know how to manually configure a switch the way the enterprise devices are configured.

That being understood, Cisco/Linksys has written an graphical interface to issue the proper commands for the less experienced user (most of the time the business owner or "computer guy" in a small office). This helps lower the total cost of ownership for these devices since requiring full time staff to manage them is not necessary.

On to the "bug" issue. Even Cisco enterprise devices have bugs. This is known by anyone that purchases an enterprise device and also a smartnet contract. They (the customer) call with a problem, troubleshoot with a Cisco engineer, and if a software/IOS inconsistency is found (you call them bugs), then that information is sent to the developers to be corrected in the next IOS release. This is in NO WAY different from the way the small business switches you own are handled. The only thing is, you have different people handling the bug fixes.

The lower level (customer interfacing) people in Cisco, such as myself, do not have access to the developers that write the code. The only way for us to get these bugs to them, is to submit a trouble ticket/case. We field the call at the SBSC, if we cannot get the device to work then we send the case to another set of engineers that further review the case. They determine if it is a configuration issue and

a)if it is, it gets sent back to us with a "This is your problem..." message attached

b)if it is not a configuration problem, they then submit it to the proper group to be marked as a bug and then the bug is *sometimes* communicated to the SBSC

This is how/why the small business products are not as dynamically configurable via other means, and also why these switches can/are competitively priced when compared to the enterprise devices. The feature set along with the configuration options will determine the device class and price. The price of your device takes all of this into account as well as the development of the user interface.

I know what is coming, complaints about getting what you pay for, consistent firmware updates, etc.. I understand where you are coming from and we really are trying to get these issues FIXED; not just worked around. The only way we can gauge how many problems we are having, is getting cases opened and sent to the people mentioned above.

Thank you for taking the time to report your problems here, and these forums ARE monitored by every department in Cisco. I assure you, your complaints are heard and taken seriously.

Bill

adam.koncz Fri, 01/08/2010 - 00:51

Hi Bill,

thanks for the reply. I really understand that small business products are for small business and not acting like higher brand cisco products like catalyst switches with great ioses. I think you have posted before, that newer firmware is under developement...

That's all. No complaints, just questions. The only thing I cannot understand is this:

I understand where you are coming from

(Please note that i might misunderstood your words, i'm not a native.)

Adam :)

William Childs Fri, 01/08/2010 - 00:54

The part you highlighted is just a common american phrase that suggests that I have been in the place ( with the same problem) you are now, so I am able to view the problem exactly as you are.

Bill

P.S. That answer wasn't just for you, but for the rest of the posters in this thread.

steve.therrien Fri, 08/27/2010 - 14:51

So Cisco's been aware of the bug since November 2009 (or probably sooner) yet there's no fix in August 2010.

Nice work guys! Sounds to me that there aren't going to be any fixes other than cramming Trend Micro foistware onto the firmware. No thanks.

satanovskyl Sat, 08/28/2010 - 11:17

UNFORTUNATELY,

regarding to the official Cisco tech support (what comes out of my discussions with them),

all the discussed bugs (see also bugs regarding SGE2000 with stack routing issue and ACL editing issue) are

not considered critical, and there are no plans to fix anything in the nearest time.

...

levinthalgroup Sat, 08/28/2010 - 17:06

That won't stop me from calling on Monday.  I've just taken on a dentist's office that has one of these (SRW2048 actually) and was waiting to try to get into it again on Monday, while the dentist is on vacation and the office is closed.  That way, I have a week to fix things if I mess them up.  My previous attempt was before I spent time studying here.

With Internet Explorer 8 not working without the hack (which I've done, fingers crossed that it will work) and IE Tabs not supporting the current version of Firefox, Cisco provides no workable solution.

If they truly don't want to support the products, I suggest they swap them out for something that they will support.

satanovskyl Sun, 08/29/2010 - 04:01

Please, report here the status of the case.

levinthalgroup Sun, 08/29/2010 - 06:01

I intend to post here.

I also decided on one more backup emergency fix I'm going to have at hand, but it's utterly unacceptable for Cisco to expect that everyone can do what I'm going to.

Just in case the Internet Explorer 8 hack doen't work for me (this office is a 45 minute drive each way in traffic) I'm going to also bring my MacBook Pro, upon which I have Parallels.  Later today, I'm going to use it to set up a Virtual Machine running Windows XP SP1, which will give me a "compatible" version of IE.  I know that will work; it just really annoys the heck out of me that the SWR2048 has taken so much time and extra effort for us to support because Cisco apparenty cant be bothered, for a CURRENT PRODUCT!

rogue_output Wed, 12/22/2010 - 05:49

I, too, ran into this problem today. All you have to do to get it working in IE8 is click the Compatibility View button. It's right next to the address bar.

I find it fitting that the icon on that button is a broken page!

sjgriffiths Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:25

Yep,

Just run into this problem as well.  Followed the instructions in the manual, which I've just downloaded:-

"Open your web browser and enter 192.168.1.254 into the Address field. Press the Enter key and the login screen appears."

What they don't seem to tell you, is that you need to dig out an old windows machine and do it on there.  We left windows after the Vista debacle and now we all just use Macs, OSX and Safari.  However, Linksys, or should I now say Cisco, don't use that and therefore their hardware doesn't work ;-(

We bought it, because it was meant to be the best.....

Very Disappointed,

Stephen

atmorhonealpes Tue, 08/09/2011 - 09:01

I've got an SRW248G4 Firmware 1.3.0 and can't use Web interface with any of the usual browers: IE9, Chrome 13, Firebox 3.6/5.0.

It's not a Web interface

This MUST be fixed, or the switch replaced !

Lionel

matmcfad Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:15

Lionel,

I am attempting to reproduce the issue here in cisco, so we may determine a work around. Could you please provide me with some additional information?

Are you using the SRW248G4 or SRW248G4P? As well, what version number, this can be found on the product label on the back of the device, after the product name, denoted by a "v" then a number. If you do not see a version number, that is alright, but it may be important to check. Additionally, what firmware is curently loaded? The latest firmware for the SRW248G4 is 1.2.3.0, while the latest firmware for the SRW248G4P is 1.3.1.

Lastly, does this issue occur with the default configuration of the switch? If not, it could help to send me your current switch configuration.

Thank you,

Matthew McFadden

sjgriffiths Tue, 08/16/2011 - 12:30

Best of Luck Matthew, the SRW248G4 may be different to the SRW2024 - but with that, it's easy just don't use Microsoft's rubbish and then nothing, zilch, etc.

Not impressed, especially when a few months after I posted on here the switch stopped working completely as a switch and the nice man at Cisco said, "Oh, that happens sometimes".

You're probably better off buying elsewhere is how I now look at it.

If only Apple made switches.  I didn't think I'd be in the position to be called an Apple Fan Boy, but "It just works".

Cisco - you have something big to learn here.  You can't just put things in the market place and not worry about it at all - "Just because you're Cisco".  Look how Microsoft are falling!

Stephen

atmorhonealpes Tue, 10/11/2011 - 07:05

Matthew,

Sorry for not answering you before.

This is because, I've buy another brand of switch to definitively solve the Web GUI problem (I now have a real Web GUI and not the Cisco "IE6 GUI").

If this can help other users, I use:

SWR248G4 (no "P") v1.1 and I upgraded it to firmware 1.3.0 (maybe I've make a mistake by upgrading, as you say 1.2.3.0 is the latest for this model ?)

Actions

Login or Register to take actions

This Discussion

Posted November 5, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Stats:
Replies:32 Overall Rating:5
Views:28169 Votes:0
Shares:0
Tags: gui, web, webview, srw2024, ui
+

Related Content