SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

Post a reply


In an effort to prevent automatic submissions, we require that you complete the following challenge.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

Re:SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

by Guest » Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:41 am

Hi Kevin, Kevin,  when i ordered my SA500 I only wanted a non wireless version (SA520), as personally i would prefer adding external access points to the network, as it would give me more flexability with wireless deployement  and options. ie.  Bridging, repeating or just in AP mode.  But the wireless can originate from somewhere other than my  security appliance. I know that with my wireless G WAP200s, I can bridge long distance  around 20Mb/sec , and these APs are inexpensive.  (but I can only attach GRID or Yagi antennas to the right antenna post , when looking from the front of the unit).   Is there anything really bad  with 20Mbit/sec link between bridged APs , much faster than a E1 or T1 link :D. The screen shot of the wireless management interface of the WAP200 may help explain that functionality. regards Dave  

Re:SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

by Guest » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:45 am

problem is the models you list Above are all 802.11G not N... time for Cisco to upgrade the line I guess.. I believe an Error exists in your Cisco spec sheet... take a quick look at page 6  it seems to say the AP541N & WAP4410N Supports Multiple modes, including "AP , Bridge, Repeater, & "Client" so is Steves answer above incorrect...?  Client does NOT mean ... end user laptops etc.. otherwise the other Wireless products would have this feature in the spec sheet... please clarify http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collate ... ochure.pdf

Re:SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

by Guest » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:39 am

Hi Kevin, We do have a bridging solution for bridging a single vlan if you use the WAP200 or WAP2000 product. I must admit I prefer the WAP200E , as there is only a single N-Type antenna connector that bypasses the internal diversity antenans when it is connected. It is POE enabled with no facility for a DC power pack.  So it must be powered from a POE injector or a POE switch. The illustration below , shows one topology, but grid or yagi antennas  can be connected to the WAP200E for long distance comms. There is the WAP200, WAP2000 and WET200 that can bridge, but these three use SMA antennas.  You can connect a external antenna( when looking at the rear) to the left hand antenna post. But please check their manuals for capabilities.  

Re:SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

by Guest » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:42 am

issue #1Reloading the correct license resolved issue -  there have been others who have had the same issue & this could be a call generator https://www.myciscocommunity.com/message/27894#27894  the feature request for newer firmware would be that instead of having the end user type (or cut & past) PID etc into a webpage...  that when you click "buy license" or free trial etc.  the device would sent this info to the correct registration page, through https// or however it does it issue #2SA520W-->AP1252 tested last night & works okThe feature request here is that Cisco provide some type of Client Bridging solution for SMB... ideally this would be a firmware update to the AP541N as the device supports POE & removable antennas  rather then forcing SMB to the consumer WET610N or to buy the more expensive 1252 I understand you have more important issues to fix right now...  you can close the cases & this thread.. thanks AgainKevin

Re:SA520W -vs- 891W -vs- ASA5505 IPS & Wireless 802.11n bridging

by Guest » Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:06 am

Thanks for responding with case numbers.  I am forwarding that along. Issue 1The license file ending 3550 appears to be incorrect.  The PID there shows SA520W-K9:DNI1344A295, which incorrect.  It should be SA520W-K9.  The second file appears correct and the logs look like the IPS license installed correctly.  If this is not the case, let me know. (log file)Fri Feb 5 01:23:38 2010(GMT -0800) INFO System PLATFORM     cslLicenseFileInstall: Status of license install for license: 0 is No Error Fri Feb 5 01:23:38 2010(GMT -0800) INFO System PLATFORM     cslLicenseFileInstall: successful: 1, failed: 0, existing: 0 Fri Feb 5 01:23:39 2010(GMT -0800) INFO System PLATFORM     cslUpdateStatus: Store /flash/store/pri/lservrc.pri found at index 0 Fri Feb 5 01:23:39 2010(GMT -0800) INFO System PLATFORM     cslUpdateStatus: License at index 0 on store at index 0 Fri Feb 5 01:23:39 2010(GMT -0800) INFO System PLATFORM     cslUpdateStatus: Store /flash/store/eval/eval_license found at index 1  On the firewall logs, do you have some rules that have logging turned on?  If so, that would explain why you are seeing them.  We are working on cleaning up the logs so that CDP messages that are fine don show up at some basic log levels. Issue 2 The SA520W cannot be configured in a bridge mode.  It can only accept clients.  The AP541N can do bridging, but cannot be configured as a client. The AP1252 can be configured in bridge mode and client mode.  If you want to use the wireless on the SA520W, I would recommend the AP1252.http://cisco.com/en/US/docs/wireless/ac ... #wp1040354 I have not personally tested the WET610N.  I am sure it would work as well, but if you are using an ESW540P on one side of it, I might be a little concerned with through put with the WET610N. The SA520W supports WPA2 with Radius. Alternatively, you could use 2 AP541N with bridging if you wanted to.   I can give you the exact reasons why there is CNA and CCA.  CCA focus on the voice configurations, and can do very complicated voice configurations.  CNA doesn go into that as much.  It is two different development teams that work each product.  Let me know if you have any further questions or if I missed something.

Top