Cisco Wireless - Can't delete/remove Bridge-group 1 from top level interfaces

So, Time for another post.

I found this particularly annoying issue with some new Cisco 1141N Wireless Access Points.

The problem is that you want to use "Bridge-Group 1" for your management of the WAP and you want to assign Bridge-Group 1 to a sub-interface.

The default config looks something like this

interface Dot11Radio0
 no ip route-cache
 bridge-group 1
 bridge-group 1 subscriber-loop-control
 bridge-group 1 block-unknown-source
 no bridge-group 1 source-learning
 no bridge-group 1 unicast-flooding
 bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled

interface GigabitEthernet0
 no ip route-cache
 bridge-group 1
 no bridge-group 1 source-learning
 bridge-group 1 spanning-disabled

No matter what you do, you can not take "bridge-group 1" off of either of these interfaces using the standard "no bridge-group 1 command" as you would expect. I was configuring one Wireless access point and somehow managed to get it off but had made so many changes by the time I'd realised I had resolved it, that I couldn't figure out what I had done to get it off the blasted thing! Always track your changes and observe the results!

Eventually I figured it out and found another guy with the same problem.

So my Posts from http://packetlife.net/blog/2012/feb/20/aironet-aps-bridge-groups-and-bvi/ :



Cameron (guest) commented on Monday, July 16, 2012 at 8:52 p.m. UTC

I'm curious as to what hardware this was configured on. I'm trying replicate these steps on my Aironet 1141n but cannot setup the bridge groups the same way. The Dot11Radio0 is in bridge-group 1 by default and cannot be removed. This means when I go to configure Dot11Radio0.10, I cannot add the bridge group 1 like you did in the example. Should I just move to the next bridge group?







PACETREE (guest) commented on Monday, October 29, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. UTC

I ran into the same problem trying to remove bridge group 1 from my 1141N. You need to add the physical interfaces to another bridge group (i.e. overwrite the bridge group on the physical interfaces) and then you are free to use bridge-group 1 on a subinterface which you will need to do if one of your sub-interfaces is going to be your management interface (and int BVI1 having a IP address in this network)

"Next we need to remove initially configured “bridge-group 1” on physical interfaces FastEthernet0 dot11Radio0 and dot11Radio1 because we will use their subinterfaces. We cannot remove “bridge-group 1” directly. It does not allow us to do this. It likes “bridge-group 1” probably because it is necessary to existence of BVI1-interface. But we can assign “bridge-group 2” to interface and then remove it yet. Just look at that:
ap-1131.sokol.msk#configure terminal
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config)#interface FastEthernet0
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#no bridge-group 1
%command not allowed, cannot remove bridge-group 1
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#bridge-group 2
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#no bridge-group 2
Feb 13 19:14:29: %LINK-3-UPDOWN: Interface BVI1, changed state to down
Feb 13 19:14:30: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface BVI1, changed state to down
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#do show running-config interface FastEthernet 0
Building configuration...

Current configuration : 90 bytes
!
interface FastEthernet0
no ip address
no ip route-cache
duplex auto
speed auto
end

ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#interface dot11Radio0
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#bridge-group 2
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#no bridge-group 2
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#interface dot11Radio1
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#bridge-group 2
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#no bridge-group 2
ap-1131.sokol.msk(config-if)#end

'ize Vs 'ise

A long time since I posted anything potentially useful. I guess that I have not discovered much over the last few months!

This started irking me more than usual today so I found the reasons why this happens with your spell check in MS Word. A bit of a detraction from my usual Networking and Linux related gaff. Also literally just a copy and paste from http://www.shaunakelly.com



"Word spells words like 'organize' with American spelling"


In Australian English, Word will mark 'center' and 'color' as errors, but it accepts both 'organize' and 'organise' as correct.


Many Australians spell words like 'organize' with -ise. But the dictionaries prefer -ize.


I think I'm right in saying that the Macquarie Dictionary (which has become a kind of de facto standard of Australian English) uses both, but prefers -ize.


There is no entry in the Oxford English Dictionary for 'organise' or 'agonise' or similar -ise words. The OED says:


"…in modern French the suffix has become -iser…. But the suffix itself …

is in its origin the Greek [ ], Latin -izare; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic. In this Dictionary the termination is uniformly written -ize."


Given that lots of people use -ise, but the main dictionaries either use or prefer -ize, I guess it's reasonable for Word to allow both as correct.


For what it's worth, my understanding (largely based on the etymologies in the big OED) is that the British had one of their routine love affairs with the French in the 19th century. It was then that the Brits abandoned the -ize words in favour of the French -ise. About the same time, they stuck an extra 'me' on the end of program to make the truly awful 'programme'. (As far as I know, we don't have telegrammes or anagrammes, for example!)


So 'organise' and 'programme' are French spellings. The real "British" spellings are 'organize' and 'program'. But the Americans had long since left home with the old British spellings before the British adopted French spellings. And so today many people see the -ize spelling as American!

Blogger is fucking pants.

Have a link instead - http://www.unix.com/unix-dummies-questions-answers/185203-sendmail-weird-local-delivery-problem.html

Need For Speed - The Run

Haven't posted in a while so pinching my post from the EA forums about my troubles with my Graphics cards!!;

I like to think that I have a pretty decent rig; Dual Nvidia GTX 560Ti's, 8 Gig of serious RAM, Core i5 2600k etc... Also, running Windows 7 and all things seem pretty stable.

Kinda enjoying this game when it works but getting it to not crash has been a bit of a nightmare. I won't even go into the lack of 3D support....

Anyway, got fed up this evening and decided to post. I managed to get the game working relatively well after disabling my SLI (lame!) and turning down the resolution to something I would hope that my rig could handle - 1280x1024. This stopped the constant random crashing at the start of every level or at least reduced to every now and again which wasn't so bad.

I've just made it up to the Nikki and Mila level (end of Level 2) and straight after the cut scene, as soon as it fades back into the game it crashes every time. I'm not sure what to try next as I've tried tweeking the graphics settings down even further and still having the problem. Essentially I cant play the game as I cant get this level to start!

I have never seen a PC game with this many severe bugs and I've been gaming since day dot.

PS, Sorry, I also forgot to mention that I am experiencing the same Nikki and Mila crash before AND after installing the PC patch that came out 3 days ago.

Cheers



[UPDATE!!!!]

So I think I have resolved this issue finally. Though not exactly sure what the cause was. I'm leaning towards blaming my Gigabyte 560 ti OC's unstable factory overclock. After much headache installing temperature monitoring software and getting this working in-game Nvidia released the 295.73 drivers in late February. It may have been a bug in the previous drivers or it may have been the (factory) overclock. After installing the 295.73 drivers I managed to get past the Nikki and Mila stage and thought all was running well but still suffered momentary crashes.

I was playing another game and was experiencing similar crashes now and again. Trawling the Nvidia forums I stumbled across a 560 thread and noted a lot of people having the same kinds of problems mostly with BF3 (another frostbyte engine title). A lot of talk of increasing the stock voltage to over 1.000 volts but CRUICIALLY underclocking the card from it's factory overclock to the standard 822/1900 (instead of 900/2004) speeds. Once I had done this NFS seems A LOT more stable. I have not had a single crash on start up (used to happen first time, every time requiring me to start the game twice) nor in game crash. Not very happy that (albeit overclocked) card is released and is completely unstable. You would think that these things would ship and be relatively stable out of the box??

Anyway - posting an update so that this may help others..

Cheers