08-24-2017 01:33 PM
We're running 184.108.40.206. Master/stdby and 6 locals + 1 spare local
We have just added a new IP address to our existing master (our first step towards 2n redundancy - we are readdressing all of the masters & locals (new subnets), the locals have not been done yet). We also have a new domain for all the controllers.
I want to set the new master FQDN on all of our APs. We have lots of AP groups so this needs to be done in a manageable way.
I can successfully point APs at the new FQDN of the master, it works fine.
At the moment I am doing this by adding a provisioning profile to the AP group I want to talk to the new master address. I add the prov-profile which has the new master FQDN, do a 'write mem', and this prompts a reboot of the AP.
The only issue with this is that the AP boots, sits around for 10 mins before realising it has new settings, and then boots again before using it's new master FQDN. It's not a disaster, but it seems long-winded, so I'm trying to cut this down to one reboot.
I tried a test on a single AP - I added a prov profile to the ap-group of the test AP that had the same master FQDN as the AP was already using (the old one), I did a 'write mem', nothing happened, presumably because it realised that although I had added a prov profile, there had been no change in the settings. Then I went into that same prov profile and changed the master (master set) to the new master name and did a 'write mem' - again the AP didn't reboot - all good. So now the new master is in the prov profile and this info has been saved to the locals. So I thought all I need to do is issue the 'reprovision' command from within the prov profile that the AP group is using and the new settings will get provisioned to the AP with only one reboot. But no! I ran the reprovision command, the AP rebooted, sat in its confused state for about 10 (more like 13 actually) mins and then rebooted again (and then comes up fine)
Like I say this isn't exactly disastrous, we have announced enough downtime to make this feasible, but it's just a bit annoying. Am I missing a trick here?