ExtremeCloud IQ

 View Only

 Classification rules with Network Policy's Device template not working

systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn posted 05-10-2022 16:22
Hi,

I have a bunch of AP650(AH)'s, and i want High Density in some areas, and not in others.  So i create another AP650(AH) template, and another radio profile, the radio profile does not have HD enabled.

I create my classification rule, and do it by IP address.  I figure ill do a bunch by IP and possibly others by Location.  So i create the rule, put the IP addresses in for 4 AP's, because at this point I want to see it working.

I deploy the config, give it a bit, and then go into the AP.  this is what I see:

Great, it has my network policy and did pick the correct device template (we dont use 2.4gh indoors), and that template has the correct radio profile (with HD disabled).

this is what the template shows, along with that radio profile:



So that means its using the correct device template with the correct radio profile.   right?  probably wrong, and heres why.

I go into the XIQ interface, and in Column Picker, i select Radio profile for wifi0 and wifi1, they should show those AP's as having the "radio_ng11ax-5gNoHD".

but they dont, they show the other Device template's Radio Profile where HD is enabled, here:


All of those 3 above show the incorrect Radio Profile.

I went about ti in an obvious way, create the radio profile, create the device template, associate both, add the device template into the network policy, create the classification rule, adding the IP address of the AP i want to have the non-HD radio profile.  Inside the AP it looks right, but in the XIQ interface it is showing its not.

So, whats true, what im seeing in the Device itself, or what the XIQ is showing me?  so tired of the issues with Extreme wifi, had so many issues with it.

Anyone?

thanks,
Jason.
systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn
Yet again, the customer - me - has to find a work around.  You would have thought that after going to ALL that trouble of creating a new Radio Profile, new AP Template, Adding the Template to the Device Templates section, then creating the Classification rule, and then adding a bunch of IP objects, that after doing a complete config push, that the AP's would take it....   but no.. it doesnt, they dont.  Thats insane.

Instead you do all the work above, then select the AP, and revert it to device template defaults.... then it will work, and the XIQ interface will show wifi0 and wifi1's radio profile is the one you wanted it to have.

Thats just mad.  With all that work, i think that any reasonable person would think, that the complete config push would be enough.  It still doesn't explain why in the AP config itself, i see it has the radio profile i wanted it to have, but the XIQ interface was showing the other radio profile.. a bug in the XIQ interface or the AP?

Well, if anyone else is screwed by classification rules, that's the fix.


Jason.
systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn
I take it back.... seems i cant create two separate classification rules.  I have the default, and that doesnt have/need? classification rules, then i have the one I created, which is by location.  I just added a bunch of IP addresses, so that where i need to have NO HD in one room, but HD in the other, i just tell the one IP address its No HD.  I go to select the same device template (which has the no HD radio profile), and I get a banner message on the screen:


"You must configure assignment rules for some of your templates before they can be saved."


What the hell.... and assignment.. not classification? or is it?  totally fed up with this system....  how can i just get three templates to work on this damn system (they are all the same model AP)?
systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn
First of all its NOT an assignment rule.. This is what they are:

Classification RULE, Assignment DESCRIPTION

So, why its popping that up, is INSANE.

But, yet again I figured it out, the issue and thats just as nuts.

You can not add the same device template.

This is why its nuts.  I have the one with HD enabled, and I have one with it not enabled.  So all i do is CLONE the one where the radio profile is no HD, i give it the same name as my other one with the classification rule by location, but add "2" to the end of it.  I can then go into the policy >> device template, add it, and assign my classification rule (by IP for this one)...

the device templates are EXACTLY the same...only the name is different.

makes no sense, but thats how I got it working with my default device template, my non-HD template with by location classification, and my last device template with classification by IP address.. all those using classification rules, are to make one of the many AP650(AH)'s not have HD enabled.

my last step if to revert them all back to template defaults, which will reboot them, and so i can only do them after work or before anyone gets in in the morning, so morning it is.

Yours very annoyed,
J
systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn
Well, not that simple... lots more issues, and i dont have the time to explain all of it... lets just say some sometimes you can only have 20 IP addresses in a classification rule, and other times you can have more.  Sometimes it will include the building you built into a classification rule, but may not include all the buildings in that rule.  thats just the tip of the iceberg....

and wouldn't it be nice if you could actually import IP addresses in as IP Objects.... now theres a thought....

needless to say, im still fighting with this, and have hit so many road blocks in just trying get this system the way i want to...  if i ever get this working, maybe ill post again....
systemscsn's profile image
systemscsn


And this cant be true:




Because i can build that classification rule against my Device Template within the Network Policy, and dont get any kind of warning.....  its only when you go to create the IP Object <directly>  that you get that warning...

Come on Extreme, fix the obvious bugs.  I know the classification rule i created, with the IP object is working, so the above cant be true, can it?

Jason.
PS: Cant believe this is SO boring, that not ONE person has added a comment....... im only doing this to try help others when (not if) they have the same issues im having, so it might save them time......