I have recently added several new aps on my network,after they connect to the controller, I set a hostname, and change the ip address to a static. However, WCS still sees the aps by the old ip and host name despite going into each one, hitting audit, and then save, any way to fix this? Thanks.
when I try to refresh the config, it fails, and the status says (see logs), do you know exactly where i might find these logs?
Thanks for your help
WCS | Administration | logging | download
You may want to check your snmp settings between the WCS/WLC and/or snmp communications on the path between them
You may want to also consider the following:
1) Both the WCS and the WLC need to be at the same major revs (i.e.: The if the WCS is at v4.2, then the WLC should also be at 4.2). Failure to do so results in some significantly bizarre behavior such as errors after an audit - at least that was my experience.
2) You may have better success if you make the change from the WCS which pushes the change to the WLC and that way the WCS is already aware of the change. (Normally, this should work - I know of one instance where it does not: changing Master Controller Mode from the WCS).
3) If you feel strongly about making the change in the WLC (and are running a newer version of code in the WCS/WLC - i.e.: 4.x), there is a setting that forces the WLC to send configuration changes to the WCS once APPLY and "Save Configuration" are clicked:
From the *WCS*, click on Configure->Controllers and click on the controller you wish to change, and check the "Refresh on Save Config Trap" check box and click OK.
This will cause the controller to push any configuration changes up to the WCS after an APPLY and "Save Configuration" are clicked.
4) In terms of getting the WCS to actually synch up with the controller (assuming the WCS and WLC are at the same rev. levels), you may need to do what I did (this was subsequent to upgrading to v4.2 in both the WLC and WCS and having chronic "mismatch" status between the WCS and WLC):
From the WCS:
Configure->Controllers, check the controllers you wish to synch up. From the dropdown, select "refresh config from controller"
Next, select the DELETE option (instead of the RETAIN option). I believe that there are bugs in the software that upgrades earlier revisions to 4.2. I know that it might seem undesirable to DELETE information in the WCS, however, if you choose "DELETE", it seems to get rid of the residual information from the previous revisions that did not upgrade properly and the WCS will now be in synch with the controllers. DELETING the other settings makes the audit errors go away.
Subsequent audits may go better for you after performing the step shown above. However, you may need to repeat this process in item 4 above once or twice more until the database gets cleaned up, but after that my own experience has been that the WCS and WLC will eventually stay in synch.
It is unfortunate that we are forced to come up with workarounds like these when the software should clearly be able to handle this on its own, but we do what we must to get the job done.
Hope this helps,
(Please rate helpful posts)
Great post John,
I was wondering if in your experience the Refresh on Save Config Trap also works if config changes are made via the CLI and the config is saved when prompted before disconnecting.
All this grief over the WCS has me seriously considering using AirWave AMP. Do you have any experience with it? I have been doing some demo trial and it does have software upgrade scheduling and customizable grouping capabilities, which I think could come in handy in large environments with small maintenance windows.
I have not tried making changes to the CLI on the WLC and checking to see if the changes propagate to the WCS. However, I imagine that the trap would be sent in either scenario. If you wanted to test it, just make a change on the WLC (to an AP name for example) and check to see if the WCS gets updated.
I share your frustration with the WCS and its challenges in staying in synch with the controllers (not to mention inability for its own internal values to agree - such as client counts on heat maps which do not agree with the underlying detail... but I digress).
I have not used the AirWave product, but it is my understanding that it works with both autonomous APs and controllers. If Cisco does not start taking the software quality of the WCS more seriously, they are going to start driving customers to the AirWave product.
In terms of programming groups of APs / controllers, you may want to investigate Controller Templates and Access Point Templates. I have found these to be extremely helpful in making changes en masse to a large number of LWAPs, or when attempting to keep settings consistent among controllers. The more recent versions of software (4.1, 4.2, etc.) keep track of the list of APs that you last applied changes to, for example. In terms of the controller templates, now that existing templates are no longer deleted after a software upgrade, you may find that templates are a real time-saver.
(Please remember to rate helpful posts)
After a lot of use, I still fear "Refresh Config." The warning message to "Retain or Delete" is frighteningly unclear. Is it a unidirectional or bidirectional sync operation? Are you confident this only impacts the config elements on the WCS (retain=combine, delete=replace) and not on the controllers themselves? I have had some strange episodes that make me think otherwise.
That being said, I have used Config Groups and Templates, and AP Templates with success. I agree that if you use the WCS, you should make it the source of truth and do config changes through it, especially with Controller Template elements.
AirWave can replace the WCS, but its not as intuitive due to its serving of many vendors and versions. Plus it allows user-defined groupings of config elements and configuration-checking, as well as superior perfromance reporting. But the LWAPP config elements do not mimic the controller interface (which I think is as much a bane as a benefit - I'd rather have a controller grouping paradigm than templates that get corrupted when variances in the field get diffed). Conig Groups in the WCS needs a lot of work.