Wireless Access

Reply
New Contributor

Aruba OS stable release

Hi,

I am currently running 8.2.1.0 on my mobility master and 2 x physical controller. 

 

Which one is the next upgrade stable release?

 

I have been asked to upgrade the wireless infrastrucutre to the next stable release. 

 

Thanks.

Highlighted
Guru Elite

Re: Aruba OS stable release

I would suggest 8.3.0.6 or 8.3.0.7 when it comes out.

 

It would be interesting to see what others recommend.


*Answers and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and not necessarily the position of Aruba Networks or Hewlett Packard Enterprise.*
ArubaOS 8.5 User Guide
InstantOS 8.5 User Guide
Airheads Knowledgebase
Airheads Learning Videos
Aruba Central Documentation
ArubaOS Consolidated Release Notes
Aruba VIA ASE Solution - Configure VIA VPN
Highlighted
MVP Expert

Re: Aruba OS stable release

I would say 8.4.0.2,  looks really stable. We have seen some issues with 8.3 which are fixed in 8.4 and not yet in 8.3.

 

For example issues with DPI and also issues with the 345 APS's


Willem Bargeman ACMX#935 | ACCX #822

Please give me kudos if my post was useful!
If your issue is solved mark the post as solution!
Highlighted

Re: Aruba OS stable release

What's your time-frame/window for completion of the upgrade? Any particular reason you were asked to upgrade (features, bug fixes someone noticed) or just "standard maintenance" due to the time of the year?

 

We're currently on ArubaOS 8.3.0.6 as of beginning April and it finally allowed us to enable AirGroup Centralize Mode in stable state. Unfortunately, after about a month, we've hit three cluster-type-issues (two that were already patched in 8.3.0.4 to 8.3.0.6 - and occured during a fail-over) but have since returned. Note - the root cause may be different - but the "result" is the same. We have current TAC tickets for all these.

 

1. We had this first issue prior to 8.3.0.6 and was the reason we needed to upgrade to 8.3.0.6 instead of waiting for 8.3.0.7 which had another minor fix we were looking forward to.

  • "Dynamic BSS tunnel could not be setup /Denied; AP not found in STM." - Shortly after a fail-over event, some APs are unable to establish dynamic tunnels to an individual's UAC Controller - which causes the AP to send a deauthentication to the client. Other users in the area may be connected just fine (they're terminating to other UAC Controllers). Able to resolve by rebooting the AP. I built a Splunk Regex query to tell me the UAC Controller, Client MAC, and BSSID -> which i import to another table to give me the the AP-Name i need to address. Engineering ticket has been raised again for this.

2. This is the more concerning one that we discovered a couple weeks ago due to what it takes to bring the APs back online. During a fail-over event OR if an MD is rebooted (TAC had us reboot to clear out a separate stale Radius IP Address), a small population of APs become "isolated" and no longer reachable by the MDs -> SSIDs no longer broadcast, but the bridged ports continue to function normally if a down-stream device was connected at that time. The problem -> this requires us having to perform a shut/no shut on the uplink port in order to cycle the APs to restore connectivity to our MDs. I saw a similar bug in the release notes of 8.5.0.0 and mentioned it to TAC -> my co-worker consoled into one of the affected APs and TAC gathered some logs/filed a ticket with engineering - they were able to restart a specific process on the AP without a reboot -> but consoling into a 100 APs isn't an option. We've had three separate cases of this occuring. 100 APs isn't that much when compared to our over-all 3400 AP count - but when those 100 APs are randomly spread across several access switches...

 

3. This was new small-one. A single-specific AP was unable to establish a tunnel back to the client's UAC due to "IKE_Timeouts" being reported and deauth due to "UAC Down". This one didn't generate any syslog messages like the dynamic bss tunnel issue so was a bit more difficult to see and cycling the port did not resolve the issue. Although didn't see any syslog errors - by running the linked command - shows the UAC Down -  https://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS_83_Web_Help/content/arubaframestyles/1commandlist/show_ap_remote_debug_sapd.htm

 

While we're waiting on engineering tickets and with it being summer, we're waiting for answers. We've been keeping our more "critical services" such as ticket scanning on our legacy 6.5.X.X controllers till we get to the point of a stable cluster.

Highlighted
MVP Guru

Re: Aruba OS stable release

We've been deploying both 8.2.x and 8.3.x, i've seen "quirks" ;) in both versions but 8.2.x seems to be the most stable. 8.2.x is also still listed as the only AOS8 Conservative release. If you want the latest and greatest features, the Standard releases are what to deploy.


ACMP, ACSA, ACDX #985
If my post addresses your query, give kudos:)
Highlighted
New Contributor

Re: Aruba OS stable release

I would suggest staying away from 8.3.0.6 - many oddities - wait for a newer more stable release.

Highlighted
Guru Elite

Re: Aruba OS stable release

Gkaselak,

 

Please be specific about oddities, because there are many people running 8.3.0.6 and they might want to understand what you are seeing.

 

Also, 8.3.0.7 has been released.


*Answers and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and not necessarily the position of Aruba Networks or Hewlett Packard Enterprise.*
ArubaOS 8.5 User Guide
InstantOS 8.5 User Guide
Airheads Knowledgebase
Airheads Learning Videos
Aruba Central Documentation
ArubaOS Consolidated Release Notes
Aruba VIA ASE Solution - Configure VIA VPN
Highlighted
Guru Elite

Re: Aruba OS stable release


@cbjohns wrote:

 

 

1. We had this first issue prior to 8.3.0.6 and was the reason we needed to upgrade to 8.3.0.6 instead of waiting for 8.3.0.7 which had another minor fix we were looking forward to.

  • "Dynamic BSS tunnel could not be setup /Denied; AP not found in STM." - Shortly after a fail-over event, some APs are unable to establish dynamic tunnels to an individual's UAC Controller - which causes the AP to send a deauthentication to the client. Other users in the area may be connected just fine (they're terminating to other UAC Controllers). Able to resolve by rebooting the AP. I built a Splunk Regex query to tell me the UAC Controller, Client MAC, and BSSID -> which i import to another table to give me the the AP-Name i need to address. Engineering ticket has been raised again for this.

2. This is the more concerning one that we discovered a couple weeks ago due to what it takes to bring the APs back online. During a fail-over event OR if an MD is rebooted (TAC had us reboot to clear out a separate stale Radius IP Address), a small population of APs become "isolated" and no longer reachable by the MDs -> SSIDs no longer broadcast, but the bridged ports continue to function normally if a down-stream device was connected at that time. The problem -> this requires us having to perform a shut/no shut on the uplink port in order to cycle the APs to restore connectivity to our MDs. I saw a similar bug in the release notes of 8.5.0.0 and mentioned it to TAC -> my co-worker consoled into one of the affected APs and TAC gathered some logs/filed a ticket with engineering - they were able to restart a specific process on the AP without a reboot -> but consoling into a 100 APs isn't an option. We've had three separate cases of this occuring. 100 APs isn't that much when compared to our over-all 3400 AP count - but when those 100 APs are randomly spread across several access switches...

 

3. This was new small-one. A single-specific AP was unable to establish a tunnel back to the client's UAC due to "IKE_Timeouts" being reported and deauth due to "UAC Down". This one didn't generate any syslog messages like the dynamic bss tunnel issue so was a bit more difficult to see and cycling the port did not resolve the issue. Although didn't see any syslog errors - by running the linked command - shows the UAC Down -  https://www.arubanetworks.com/techdocs/ArubaOS_83_Web_Help/content/arubaframestyles/1commandlist/show_ap_remote_debug_sapd.htm

 

While we're waiting on engineering tickets and with it being summer, we're waiting for answers. We've been keeping our more "critical services" such as ticket scanning on our legacy 6.5.X.X controllers till we get to the point of a stable cluster.


1.  This looks like AOS157162

2.  Check with TAC to see if this is addressed in 8.3.0.7

3.  This looks like AOS155927


*Answers and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and not necessarily the position of Aruba Networks or Hewlett Packard Enterprise.*
ArubaOS 8.5 User Guide
InstantOS 8.5 User Guide
Airheads Knowledgebase
Airheads Learning Videos
Aruba Central Documentation
ArubaOS Consolidated Release Notes
Aruba VIA ASE Solution - Configure VIA VPN
Highlighted
Guru Elite

Re: Aruba OS stable release


@Willem Bargeman wrote:

I would say 8.4.0.2,  looks really stable. We have seen some issues with 8.3 which are fixed in 8.4 and not yet in 8.3.

 

For example issues with DPI and also issues with the 345 APS's


There are a number of fixes for 340 series access points in 8.3.0.7


*Answers and views expressed by me on this forum are my own and not necessarily the position of Aruba Networks or Hewlett Packard Enterprise.*
ArubaOS 8.5 User Guide
InstantOS 8.5 User Guide
Airheads Knowledgebase
Airheads Learning Videos
Aruba Central Documentation
ArubaOS Consolidated Release Notes
Aruba VIA ASE Solution - Configure VIA VPN
Highlighted
MVP Expert

Re: Aruba OS stable release


@cjoseph wrote:

@Willem Bargeman wrote:

I would say 8.4.0.2,  looks really stable. We have seen some issues with 8.3 which are fixed in 8.4 and not yet in 8.3.

 

For example issues with DPI and also issues with the 345 APS's


There are a number of fixes for 340 series access points in 8.3.0.7


Yes, I saw this in the release notes.


Willem Bargeman ACMX#935 | ACCX #822

Please give me kudos if my post was useful!
If your issue is solved mark the post as solution!
Search Airheads
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: