Controllerless Networks

Hi,

 

I came across one issue. I deployed IAP 225 and connected both eth0 and eth1 to two PoE switches (Juniper Virtual Chassis) for LACP (one port to each switch). I power up AP and when it was up, I disconnected eth0 cable and APs was not available anymore. 

 

Question: should eth1 take over traffic forwarding or it doesnt work this way?

#AP225

If eth0 is providing the power, the AP will reboot then pull power from eth1 and then begin forwarding data. The AP only has one PD circuit.

I know there is only one PD and I expected AP to reboot. Actually it does, but there is no network connectivity once it is up again, ping doesnt work, AP doesnt connect to Master AP.

 

If it should work, I will open TAC case. What I noticed is LACP between switch and AP doesnt negotiate (active/passive mode). Switch sends LACP msg, but Ap doesnt response. I need to enable "force-up" on the switch end. It could be related.

 

Any idea?

Are your Junipers part of a single stack?  If yes, does Juniper support spliiting the ports of a LAG across switches so long as they are in the same stack?

 

If they are separate switches, and not part of a stack, then the feature is not being used as designed. Both ports need to be part of the same LAG ID. LACP on your switch needs to be set for Active with short LACP timeout. 

 

With the way we implemented LACP all 5GHz traffic will go down one port and all 2.4GHz traffic will go down the second port.

IAP is connected to Juniper Virtual Chassis, so it is not an issue. I have opened TAC case for this.  It looks like there is an issue with LACP negotiation, but let support team provide feedback. Will share it with you guys.

 

Thx everyone.

Sounds like a plan.  Please keep us posted!

I am having the same problem with IAP225 AP's and Juniper EX3300 switches.

 

Was the resolution to this problem every found?

Hi,

Use DHCP address on IAP and set static mac-ip binding on DHCP server if you need IP to stay the same
________________________________

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy.
______________________________________________________________________________________

www.accenture.com

Thanks. I will try this recommendation tomorrow when back in the lab. Also going to test the LACP lag functionality with a Cisco switch as well.

---

@dawid.wojtkowiak wrote:
Use DHCP address on IAP and set static mac-ip binding on DHCP server if you need IP to stay the same

---

hey Dawid, was that what TAC came up with?

Nope, result of personal experience/test, but tac confirmed it as a kind of bug

Pozdrawiam/Regards

Dawid Wojtkowiak
Sent from mobile
________________________________

This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use of the e-mail by you is prohibited. Where allowed by local law, electronic communications with Accenture and its affiliates, including e-mail and instant messaging (including content), may be scanned by our systems for the purposes of information security and assessment of internal compliance with Accenture policy.
______________________________________________________________________________________

www.accenture.com

Has to be one of the biggest hack implementations of LACP I've seen.