WAP121 extremely slow

Unanswered Question
May 15th, 2012

A client contacted me for assistance with their wireless network. They had just purchased three WAP121 wireless access points and upon setting them up discovered the devices provided extremely slow access to the Internet. They have cable Internet service from Comcast and when attached to Ethernet or an older wireless router, speedtest.net shows download speed of 30Mbps. But when connected to any one of the three WAP121 devices they get less than 1 Mbps down.

Upon reviewing the settings with Cisco tier 1 support nothing seems amiss. The issue persists even when the AP is transported to another site. I am awaiting contact from tier 2.

Anyone else seeing this kind of behavior?

I have this problem too.
5 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Average Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
emoyers Fri, 05/25/2012 - 11:21

Hi, My name is Eric Moyers. I am a Network Support Engineer in the Cisco Small Business Support Center. Thank you for using the Cisco Community Post Forums.

Sorry for the delay in reaching out to you. Are you still having the issue? You mention that you worked with  tier 1 support. What was that case number? I would like to follow-up on that.

With these units being new we want to follow-up on them very closely.

Thanks

Eric Moyers

Cisco Network Support Engineer

SBSC Wireless and Surveillance SME

CCNA, CCNA-Wireless

1-866-606-1866

aubre@cyriaque.com Sun, 06/10/2012 - 19:14

I'm having the same problem with 2 brand new devices as well, both at seperate locations...I've gone as far as tier 2 and they couldn't replicate it in their lab so they closed the case! 

Both devices are behind a SonicWall TZ180.  Since it's a live environment I can't pin the SonicWall to try it with defaults.

Below are the results that I sent to Cisco Support

I did quite a bit of testing last night and I discovered that if WPA or WPA2 with AES, I get the following results:

.67 DOWN 16.22 UP

If WPA2 with TKIP, I get the following results:

15.2 DOWN 17.52 UP

If WPA with TKIP, I get the following results:

18.49 DOWN 8.27 UP

No security, I get the following results:

.50 DOWN 16.33 UP

Pinned to factory defaults with ciscosb as the ssid, I get the following results:

.47 DOWN 13.64 UP

On a wired 100MB Link. I get 21.71 Mbps down 17.13Mbps up

I’ve reset the AP to defaults several times and the common denominator is AES!

Very dissapointed in Cisco support on this one...

zacmutrux Sun, 06/10/2012 - 22:27

I was informed the units my client purchased were "seed units" never intended for resale. We returned them for a refund. You should do the same or try a warranty exchange.

damonledet Wed, 06/13/2012 - 07:38

I too am in the same boat. I have called tech support several times, was shipped a new unit, still same poblem as discribed above. Support seems to be at a lost. I contuine to get the run around everytime I call support. This product is a joke.

damonledet Thu, 06/14/2012 - 06:52

So Cisco shipped my third replacement unit and guess what same issue. I have now decided to start the refund process. My one lingering question is does Cisco have any quality control? Do new items undergo any testing, or does Cisco just test there products on the public at large?

emoyers Thu, 06/14/2012 - 08:19

Hi, My name is Eric Moyers. I am a Network Support Engineer in the Cisco Small Business Support Center. Thank you for using the Cisco Community Post Forums.

What is your case number. I would like to follow-up on your issue.

Thanks

Eric Moyers

Cisco Network Support Engineer

SBSC Wireless and Surveillance SME

CCNA, CCNA-Wireless

1-866-606-1866

damonledet Thu, 06/14/2012 - 08:44

I have 2 case numbers but the last one is 622083535. I sent an email this morning to start the refund process not sure if it has started as I have not heard back yet. I am willing to try a 4th if I can be guaranteed that it will be pre tested before it ships to me and is a fully working unit.

emoyers Thu, 06/14/2012 - 08:59

Thank you for the quick reply. I have looked at the two cases for your Cisco User ID, 622083535 and 62195998. The main issue as I am Reading the case is that when connected wirelessly to the AP he only gets 10mbps upload and 1mbps download. Is that the extent of it?

Also sorry for asking any questions, that you may have already answered, but I dont see any answers in the case notes.

What type of service do you currently have Cable or DSL or etc?

I see that you have used other AP's with success, what speeds do they get?

What troubleshooting steps did any of the engineers have you go through?

Thanks

Eric

emoyers Thu, 06/14/2012 - 09:02

Forgot to ask.

What other devices do you have on the network?

Also are you using G/N mixed, N only, etc? What kind of signal are you wanting?

Eric

damonledet Thu, 06/14/2012 - 09:24

What type of service do you currently have Cable or DSL or etc? 50mbps 10mbps    

I see that you have used other AP's with success, what speeds do they get? 50/10 the full service of the cable provider

What troubleshooting steps did any of the engineers have you go through? remove security, do N only, 20mhz, 40 mhz, he changed several of the numbers on the page, I let him remote in and try stuff.

What other devices do you have on the network? 2 switchs, and about 20 imacs, RV-082 but the wap121 is hooked direct to the RV-082. I even tried setting the rv-082 port to a vlan of 5 (no other device is hooked up on vlan 5) still same issue.

Also are you using G/N mixed, N only, etc? What kind of signal are you wanting? I want to use mixed if I would get a working device.

emoyers Fri, 06/15/2012 - 07:18

Thank you for this information. I am pooling this with some more information that I gathered from Aubre' L. Cyriaque. I am now running some testing in my lab here in the support center to see if I can gather anymore information to provide our Level 2 on this issue.

Thank you everyone for your patience's. If anyone would like to contact me directly, just mouse over my picture to the left and it should show my e-mail.

Eric Moyers

careyallenwood Sat, 06/23/2012 - 15:28

I would like to report that I have observed the same problem with two WAP121 units I recomended to a client as part of a new home network installation. The client purchased these new in April 2012. The ISP is Comcast and the router/firewall/switch is a Cisco ASA 5505. I chose this combination to take advantage of the PoE ports available on the security appliance. The access points are running the 1.0.0.3 firmware. I responded to complaints from the client that Internet access was slow. I spent two hours investigating the issue and have determined that the problem has to do with the 802.11n implementation on the device. Performance under 802.11b/g is acceptable. Performance under 802.11b/g/n or native 802.11n is acceptable for uploading, but download speed is consistently below 1MBps using www.speedtest.net. By comparison download speed using 100Base-T was consistently over 16MBps, download speed using 802.11b/g was better than 10MBps in all cases. I performed A-B testing on each access point and captured the results to JPG. I would like to know if Cisco is planning to address this issue? In the meantime I have set the access points to operate in 802.11b/g mode. I don't feel this is an adequate workaround.

emoyers Mon, 06/25/2012 - 06:23

Thank you for using the Cisco Community Post Forums.

Yes Sir we are looking into this issue. Please ca;; into the support center and open a case for this. Please reference this community post thread and have the agent send me the case number. They will know how to get in touch with me. (we work in the same area.) I can then work with them on this case.

I see you have already done some testing on your systems, please provide that to them as well.

Thanks

Eric Moyers

Cisco Network Support Engineer

SBSC Wireless and Surveillance SME

CCNA, CCNA-Wireless

1-866-606-1866

careyallenwood Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:08

The case number is 622216851. The test results have been added to the case notes.

emoyers Mon, 06/25/2012 - 10:43

The agent you spoke with, has already been over to talk with me. Thank you for this. As we progress, I will update you as to the next steps.

Eric

Brian Bergin Tue, 07/03/2012 - 12:39

Eric,

Any movement on this?  I'm a Cisco Small Business Partner and have a customer who I was going to use WAP121's at but have put the project on hold based on this and some other threads.  I see there have been no new firmware updates as yet, 1.0.0.3 being the only one out there, so I was wondering what progress had been made on a solution?

Thanks...

Brian Bergin

Terabyte Computers, Inc.

emoyers Tue, 07/03/2012 - 13:30

I have been told that the firmware is almost through the testing and approval process. No firm date as of yet. I am also waiting to see the final release notes to see what is included in the firmware.

Eric Moyers

JohnHernand Fri, 07/27/2012 - 11:11

Hello Eric,

Any new updates? Was reviewing this AP for some of our smaller offices but am concerned with the issue of the slow access.

Terp84Alum Tue, 08/07/2012 - 09:49

Eric,

Any update on the firmware? I'm looking to buy 3 of these for one of my clients. thanks

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

joergbachmayr Fri, 08/10/2012 - 04:57

Hi everybode,

also in Austria I have this problem.

Internet cable speed: 30 MBit down, 4 MBit up,

WAP121 speed: 0,7 down, 3,7 up

Seems it only affects the download speed.

And it is no difference if the device runs on PoE or on "normal" power.

But: if you set the radio settings to 802.11 b/g only (no 802.11n), then the download speed increases to 12 MBit.

Seems to be a problem with the 802.11n implementation (not very good, becaus I bought this product because of the combination PoE and 802.11n).

And it is no difference of I connect with the laptop, the mobile or the TV, no adequate 802.11n speed !!

I bought the device this week, so ... the problems are sill here (also firmware 1.0.0.3).

joergbachmayr Fri, 08/17/2012 - 07:28

Hi again everybody!

Today I had a cisco support employee remote on my system, for two sessions, 1,5 and 2,5 hours.

Without any result.

The support employee got a test summary from me with an explaination of my network components / topology.

He will discuss this with his "SME" (his wirells specialist).

Lets see ...

The following information was also to his interest: the hw version of the WAP121:

The hardware version of my unit is: WAP121-E-K9V01

Is this the same version like your problem units ?

joergbachmayr Tue, 08/21/2012 - 11:27

I additionally played a little bit with the WAP121:

I already tested:

•    Using other security, no security -> no difference

•    Using shorter passwords -> no difference

•    Using PoE vs. normal power adapter -> no difference

•    Using DHCP vs. Static IP -> no difference

•    Disabling nealy every function (logging, spanning tree and so on) which is not necessary for WIFI communication -> no difference

•    Using only lower / upper channels, only 20/40 GHz -> no difference

My WAP121 is connected to a cisco SG300, internal network address 10.1.3.x

What other settings beside the factory default are other WAP121 victims using ?

joergbachmayr Tue, 08/21/2012 - 02:36

Hi again,

today I got my replacement unit from amazon, the same issues!

Does anybody know a WAP121 owner who has no problems with the 802.11n speed ?

joergbachmayr Tue, 08/21/2012 - 11:24

Hi Eric,

my case number is 622818519, the support employee was Stoyan Stoyanov.

Perhaps you can merge your experiences with these of Stoyan.

The replacement unit has the same issues than the original one (details see below).

joergbachmayr Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:23

Now I set up some tests (I cannot believe that so many units should be damaged).

notebook - cable - ap - air - notebook

--> about 10MB Download/second

Tried different settings, all good speed.

Another setting:

notebook - air - ap - cable - sg300 (cisco switch) - NAS

--> also about 10 MB Download/second (this was strange)

Only the speed to the internet ist the problem, so what devices did you all have between your ap / switch and the internet modem?

In my environment there is a cisco pix 501, perhaps this is the problem.

To bypass my pix, I have to make some changes in my environment, which is only possible on weekend, perhaps this one.

Updates will be continued soon ....

careyallenwood Fri, 08/24/2012 - 11:57

The WAP121 units I reported are behind a Cisco ASA 5505 (ASA Version 8.4(3)) connected to the PoE ports (

Ethernet 0/6 - 7) and the ASA 5505 is in turn connected to a Comcast-provided Arris TM502G on its Ethernet 0/0 port.

joergbachmayr Mon, 08/27/2012 - 09:54

Ok, the analysing facts are not that easy like "slow".

It is no difference if the wap121 is behing or in front of the cisco pix 501, so the pix is not the problem.

But I spent some time in other areas, means:

FTP is at full speed !!

Also some http-speed-tests are at full speed, like

http://www.a1.net/hilfe-support/internet-speedtest

But other speed-tests are very slow:

http://www.speedtest.net/

There are also different websites: some are slow, some are fast, seems like it depends how the pictures of a website are placed.

The windows phone is also slow in downloading from marketplace or nokia maps.

Could it be that the wap121 makes some proxy thing that could be switched off ???

Brian Bergin Wed, 08/29/2012 - 20:50

I was just informed by another Cisco employee that new firmware is out for the WAP121. It's at:http://www.cisco.com/cisco/software/release.html?mdfid=284152657&flowid=32562&softwareid=282463166&release=1.0.1.10&relind=AVAILABLE&rellifecycle=&reltype=latest

It has a date of 27 August 2012.  Can anyone experiencing the issue get it installed and report back to let us know if it's fixed?

Thanks...

joergbachmayr Thu, 08/30/2012 - 00:09

Sorry, no good news!

The situation is still the same, FTP is fast, Austrian speedtest (A1) is also fast, but most speedtests are slow, also the http transfer.

I now try to get back to the factory defaults and run the wizard again, perhaps ... the hope dies at last

joergbachmayr Thu, 08/30/2012 - 01:47

Also the reboot to factory default had no impact on the problems ...

The problem is still existing as described above.

drmciscoccna Fri, 08/31/2012 - 15:57

I just applied the new firmware also and the download speed is still slow!! 2Mb/s down & 4 Mb/s up. from the wired side speeds are 21.5 Mb/s & 4Mb/s

ran on the following site web100.rit.edu:7123 

Terp84Alum Thu, 09/06/2012 - 12:46

So based on this thread, these are: "do not buy"? What about the WAP321?

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPad App

joergbachmayr Fri, 09/07/2012 - 02:50

At this time, I think the issue is not only cisco WAP121 based, but is demanding on the whole network setting which I don't know exactly what are the guilty parts.

Cisco itself seems not to be analysing this problem, regarding the last lame excuses from cisco support, which I now post here, because in my opinion this answer is a cheek (the proxy question I asked because the problem seems only to be active on http transfer protocol, not on ftp for example):

-->

Of course this device do not have any features of proxy.

For speed delay, we can have many factors which can it influence of speed.

For example this could be ISP connectivity with Internet cloud, NAT, CPU utilization and so.

<--

It's me now again: It seems the support employee has forgotten completely the WebEx session he had with me analysing this issue.

But: a school mate of me, who is working for an telecommunications provider, has an idea about the problem, so I hope he has time the next few days to check this out - I will give an update here.

drmciscoccna Sat, 10/27/2012 - 10:44

I was doing a little more testing and was able to get my speed to up to wired connection speed!!

through testing different setting i found the speed problem seems to lie with the 802.11n implementation. setting the wireless Radio tab Mode to 802.11b/g, my speed went from 1530 kbs down to 19868 kbs down. i also gained about 100kbs by unchecking the Legacy Rate Set for 1 & 2.  

So Cisco i beleive you need to look into the 802.11n settings on the AP!!

careyallenwood Sat, 10/27/2012 - 11:27

You have come to the same conclusion I did (see my post from Jun 23, 2012 3:28 PM in response to zacmutrux). However, running an 802.11n access point in 802.11g mode is not an acceptable workaround. Joerg Bachmayr has made a heroic effort to resolve the issue, but even after applying a subsequently released firmware update (which I'm sure we all assumed was designed to correct the problem), the issue remains and there is no further comment from Cisco on this. Eric Moyers (Cisco Network Support Engineer) had attempted to respond to these complaints, but the last post I see from him is on Sep 14 2012, so perhaps Cisco does not plan to address the issue. What is disturbing to me is that Cisco continues to sell these products as if there is nothing wrong with them. Derek Singletary posted on Sep 14 2012 that he has not experienced the problem, so possibly the early adopters received a batch of faulty hardware.

aubre@cyriaque.com Sat, 10/27/2012 - 22:28

Honestly ladies and gentlemen,

Time is money, I would never roll out a WAP121 to any of my clients. With the negative experiences that I've had with 2 of my own.  I've had Cisco RMA both, 1 worked with Wireless N the other didn't.  I purchased a WAP 321 a week ago and I have NO ISSUES!  I got tired of screwing around with settings as you can see in a previous post, working with a tier 2 or 3 engineers trying to resolve the issue to no avail.   I know that the solution shouldn't be to upgrade a brand new device, but I'd rather not have the headache or GOD forbid, a complaining customer!

Brian Bergin Thu, 09/06/2012 - 20:33

For those of you with speed issues, can you let the rest of us know how many simultaneous users there are using the 121's?  I'd be very interested in hearing how many users there are.

maranellotech Fri, 09/14/2012 - 05:55

I stumbled accross this thread while looking for something else and just wanted to share my experience with the WAP121 because so far it has been great.  I am running one in my own office, testing it out before I start using them at client locations.

Mine is hardware version WAP121-A-K9 V01 running firmware version 1.0.1.10.  I have the wireless set to the default 802.11 b/g/n.  I am using the included power adapter (not PoE).

I have AT&T DSL 6.0 service.  On my speedtests, I get a steady 6.30Mbps downstream on my laptop sitting about 15' away from the access point.

My setup:

AT&T modem-->Meraki MX60 Router-->Cisco SG200-26 Switch-->WAP121

joergbachmayr Fri, 09/14/2012 - 06:02

I have another few infos:

I can except the cisco pix and the cisco switch, because when I connect the AP directly to my modem (Thomson TG789vn Business) the same issues are present.

If I use another modem, I get full speed.

So it is the combination of the Cisco WAP121 and the Thomson Modem, and only the http transfer.

FTP is ok, FTP can also be UDP, http is TCP, I assume that the problem is at the TCP protocol.

Perhaps the MTU or the TCP packaging between the two units is the problem ...

emoyers Fri, 09/14/2012 - 06:26

That is very interesting. Thank you for this info. When you say you used another modem you got full speed, what was that modem?

Eric

maranellotech Sat, 10/27/2012 - 11:37

To follow up on my previous comment, I now have 4 of these in use at a couple different locations and they are all working great, getting the full downstream speeds that the customer is supposed to be getting. One location at 6 Mbps and the other at 15 Mbps.

Sent from Cisco Technical Support iPhone App

drmciscoccna Tue, 10/30/2012 - 18:46

I was doing a little more testing and was able to get my speed to up to wired connection speed!!

through  testing different setting i found the speed problem seems to lie with  the 802.11n implementation. setting the wireless Radio tab Mode to  802.11b/g, my speed went from 1530 kbs down to 19868 kbs down. i also  gained about 100kbs by unchecking the Legacy Rate Set for 1 & 2.  

So Cisco i beleive you need to look into the 802.11n settings on the AP!!

robrothberg Tue, 10/30/2012 - 18:52

If you scroll up, you'll find the issue was identified as 802.11n back in June.  Since that time, Cisco has released an update but it sounds like it did not address the issue.  I've switched to a different vendor.  802.11ac gear is already coming out, I'm not going to touch gear where they haven't even figured out 802.11n yet.

Actions

Login or Register to take actions

This Discussion

Posted May 15, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Stats:
Replies:154 Avg. Rating:
Views:33565 Votes:5
Shares:0

Related Content