Documentation

 View Only

 Is there any plan to provide updated release notes for IQ Engine versions

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b posted 11-03-2020 14:37

Maybe I’m just missing something but as far as I can find these release notes are static and not kept up to date with known issues

example - https://docs.aerohive.com/330000/docs/help/english/documentation/6.5r12_HiveOS_ReleaseNotes.pdf

I learned today via a GTAC ticket, that there is currently an open CFD for the very issue I submitted a ticket for.

I’ve spent time investigating, troubleshooting, collecting documentation and submitting a ticket only to be told it’s a known issue and will be fixed in the next release. Why not publish known CFD’s for firmware so I don’t have to waste time on known issues?

Larry Kunz's profile image
Larry Kunz

Hi, John. Release Notes for the latest version of ExtremeCloud IQ are now posted at https://www.extremenetworks.com/support/release-notes/product/extremecloud-iq/.

You can obtain older Release Notes from the ExtremeCloud IQ page on the Extreme Portal.

I hope this is helpful.

Larry Kunz

 

Ovais Qayyum's profile image
Ovais Qayyum

ExtremeCloud IQ has that info online at:

 

 

Regards,

Ovais

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

All of the options you’ve presented still redirect to the same docs.aerohive.com page I linked above.

The ExtremeCloud IQ release notes have been decent lately regarding addressed and known issues. My original post was specifically regarding IQ Engine release notes, which I’ve not seen get updated aside from the release of the subsequent firmware version notes.

That said, there are still instances where I’ve been told an ExtremeCloud IQ issue was known and it still was not present in the known issues section of the notes, so there is still some disconnect there as well.

 

jnicholas's profile image
jnicholas

Hi, John--

It sounds like something might have been missed in the IQE release notes. Let me know which CFD you encountered and I will try to track down what happened and correct it. The IQE release notes are my domain.

Robert

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

I don’t see this as something being missed, but more of a process issue. My concern is that there is currently little transparency between customers and support regarding known issues. It would seem we’re all individually rediscovering the wheel, troubleshooting and putting in tickets just for GTAC to often tell us there is already a CFD, or being told here in the Hub to reach out to our SE for more info. As far as I can find, CFD’s aren’t documented anywhere that is customer facing. If you click through all the IQE release notes, every single one states “There are no known issues in this release of IQ Engine”, until the subsequent firmware version is released at which  point all the “addressed issues” from the previous version are listed.

 A similar concern was raised by  here - https://community.extremenetworks.com/extremecloud-iq-formerly-hivemanager-233179/look-for-release-notes-for-iq-engine-10-0r9b-7829245

 

The two I’m currently aware of are CFD-5387 and CFD-3926. Both of these have been explained to me via recent GTAC cases, but I’d imagine there are many others I’m not aware of based on number of fixes in previous releases.

My understanding is that CFD-5387 affects the current latest firmware 10.0.9.2 regarding high interference alarms (which I thought was fixed by CFD-4085 back in Jan 2020 - see this thread where I was told by another customer that this was a known issue 5 months before it was documented in the 10.0r8 release notes https://community.extremenetworks.com/accesspoints-233173/ap550-high-rx-crc-rate-42-on-only-one-radio-7828015) . I can’t help but wonder if other customers like  are also spinning their wheels trying to solve problems caused by other known issues - https://community.extremenetworks.com/accesspoints-233173/ap650-radio-channel-grouping-and-high-interference-7829369

 

CFD-3926 is a 32-bit integer overflow affecting 6.5.12.0 causing false reporting in ECIQ.

 

Kevin Piazza's profile image
Kevin Piazza

 YES! I am with you 100%! I’m working with GTAC about some of these issues as we speak, and the engineer has confirmed that there are numerous bugs and issues with the firmware. As you said, not everything is transparent to the customers and I can legitimately say that I’m frustrated.

 

Thank you for sharing my post “https://community.extremenetworks.com/accesspoints-233173/ap650-radio-channel-grouping-and-high-interference-7829369”, because I brought this up when the engineer was looking at things and I showed him what was happening when you turn off a radio or turn it to sensor, and have one radio with 5GHz. Radio 0 stays between channels 36 and 64, radio 1 stays between 100 and 165. However, if you turn on a 2.4GHz radio and a 5GHz radio then the 5GHz radio will use all of the UNII channels. He was a bit perplexed and did imply that he may need to forward this internally to be looked at. However, that doesn’t even get to why AP650 core dumps were occurring with one radio on sensor and the other on 5GHz. 

 

I’ve had struggles with ExtremeCloud IQ and the AP650 firmware for a little over a year. The high interference warnings are still very present with 10.0r9b, adjust one or two things and then clients are dropped or not able to connect anymore. Having a list of everything that is known to be an issue within ExtremeCloud IQ and our AP firmware, would benefit everyone.

 

Needing to tweak WiFi constantly and trying to get things to work; only to find out that it was a bug the whole time has become a problematic consistant issue. Thank you, John, for the post :thumbsup:

daniel's profile image
daniel

I’m totally with you guys, the release notes are a static note at the time of release and it’s super frustrating!

We have exactly the same issues with our AP650s as Kevin said, but I wanted to wait for the IQ Engine release notes after 10.0r9b before I open a ticket.

Thanks to you I don’t have to do that :thumbsup_tone3: .

jnicholas's profile image
jnicholas

Thanks, John, Kevin, and Daniel--

Those are very valuable comments, and yes, the release notes are static at the time of release. I can see where this can be a source of frustration for network administrators and engineers, so I plan to open the discussion internally to look for ways to make this sustainably more transparent. 

I have a broad idea of where to go with the feedback you’ve provided in this thread, but if you have other pain points as they relate to known and addressed issues specifically, definitely drop them in this thread. Feel free to get others to contribute as well. Your needs should be driving my efforts.

Robert

daniel's profile image
daniel

Thanks for your feedback Robert, this sounds promising.

I have indeed one question or pain point as you called it left from this thread: https://community.extremenetworks.com/extremecloud-iq-formerly-hivemanager-233179/look-for-release-notes-for-iq-engine-10-0r9b-7829245

Can you answer that?

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

, of note, CFD-3926 was not included in the IQ Engine release notes for 6.5r13

jnicholas's profile image
jnicholas

Hi John--

That bug has an ambiguous status which I am chasing down now. I intend to revise the release notes as soon as I find out the definitive status.

Robert

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

Here’s another one I just found (access points are sporadically disconnecting from ECIQ ) which I’ve experienced but haven’t gotten around to digging into because it’s sporadic. In passing I was told it was a firewall/network issue, but looks like it was a firmware issue.

https://extremeportal.force.com/ExtrArticleDetail?n=000055137&q=%22ap250%22

However, looking at the 10.0r9b release notes, I don’t see this mentioned. Are there different “tiers” of bug that do or don’t get included as “issues” in release notes?

https://docs.aerohive.com/330000/docs/help/english/documentation/10.0r9b_IQEngine_ReleaseNotes.pdf

w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

This latest firmware (10.0.10.1 / 10.0r10 ) is a great example of the breakdown that is happening due to the lack of efficient documentation/communication channels. Not trying to twist any knives here, just wanting to point out how this is negatively effecting customers on the day-to-day

 

daniel's profile image
daniel
Adam's profile image
Adam
I'm going to resurrect this post since it's still an issue, I don't see others asking the question but it's coming up two years without being looked at.

Currently I have cases open involving, CFD-7223, CFD-7276, CFD-7332, CFD-7344, CFD-7396 and CFD-7525.

I upgraded firmwares to 10.4.3 last week which brought our network to a halt, I didn't get enough captures prior to turning SDR off so now I may be out of luck on finding the reasoning. As I've been logging tickets to find a cause I have been checking the known issues webpage (as previously discussed in this post) and I see the same problem still exists where CFDs are not being added. Known and resolved issues

We should have the page updated with CFDs as investigations are being done, I'm sure others are like myself and spend time troubleshooting and getting information prior to opening a ticket, if we could see CFDs others have found it would save our time and point us in the right direction.

Also why are we the ones testing dodgy firmware releases when it's marked as the stable recommended firmware?
w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b
w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b

hey @Sam Pirok, is anyone on the extreme side still looking to improve documentation?

This weeks documentation spreadsheet included this article documenting CFD-7525 which it states was resolved in 10.4r4. However the 10.4r4 release notes, don't mention it.  It's really hard to trust upgrading firmware when I know there are known problems that go undocumented so often.

Was surprised to see ​Adam's comment above go unnoticed as well considering how many CFDs he listed.

Sam Pirok's profile image
Sam Pirok

Hey guys, it's not that your comments are going unnoticed, I just try not to give you any fluff updates and we're still working on this process, as you can see. I really appreciate the recent examples, that helps a lot with internal discussions about this. 

Looking at CFD-7525 specifically, and I do realize this doesn't address the larger concerns here, that wasn't included in the release notes because it's still listed as an unverified bug. That could be because our engineers couldn't replicate it, but we found a fix for the original environment with the issue, so we published the fix just in case it helps others down the road. 

All that said, I hear you about not being able to make informed upgrade decisions if you can't trust the documentation to give you the full picture. The service delivery team will be talking about this issue again this week, and I will update this thread the moment I have any substantial updates. More examples can only help move things along so please keep adding those to this thread when you can. 

Adam's profile image
Adam
It's good to know there are at least internal discussions happening but I'll still reiterate the fact w1f1n00b raised the problem here 2 years ago. Maybe a section in the release notes with "unverified" CFDs so we can review and help you guys out if we're seeing the same problem.

It appears to me that the team doesn't have a production sized test environment to recreate and monitor bugs, so many of these CFDs will always be unverified.

Since 7525 is the example being used I had noted it in my comment since an engineer had spotted the issue on my 650s/510s, I don't believe I was the originator for that CFD so wouldn't multiple environments justify it as being verified?

I still have multiple issues being looked at, most of which I would expect to be "verified" and nothing is in the latest release notes. On 10.4.3 SDR killed our network, the CFD-7332 that may be related was addressed in 10.4.4. I have been advised to review WIPs prior to putting the new release into testing for Extreme, but there's nothing identified in the release notes for this new problem. I'm fairly sure I shouldn't be getting special treatment and it should be common knowledge in the release notes so why hasn't it been added?

Engineer notes for this SDR example;

I'll add my current cases for reference to others that may see similar issues, I can see a few client tracking problems in the release notes but I have a couple more, including CFD-7604 "hostname not appear on client page" which was created after being verified by the engineer to keep it separate from another issue in the original ticket.


CFD-7619 has an old article being addressed here https://extremeportal.force.com/ExtrArticleDetail?an=000102165 with the fix being implemented mid-Feb but doesn't appear in either release notes (firmware or cloud IQ).

Client tracking was one of the primary reasons I chose Extreme for our site and it hasn't worked this year. My most recent update on it is;
Others will be seeing the same problem but there are no updates anywhere on why basic functionality isn't reliable.

I don't enjoy spending my time troubleshooting and addressing issues that should be addressed within a vendor (I've had smaller but similar issues with Fortinet recently), I would prefer to spend my time improving our systems so if these "internal discussions" can help sort out your teams processes let us know what you want from us.
w1f1n00b's profile image
w1f1n00b
Adam, My experience has been equally frustration. I've been using XIQ for over three years now, and many of the bugs that have been haunting me since the very beginning (sorting issue, random errors, missing/truncated info, inaccurate info, cloud config groups, objects that can't be deleted etc) took years to resolve or are still ongoing. I still don't use DFS, WIPs or 802.11r as GTAC will often suggesting those be turned off for troubleshooting as well as requiring the latest firmware be applied.  I won't use the latest firmware until there is at least some feedback and confidence from the community that it doesn't cause major issues, which has happened more than once with firmware in the past. Even then I cautiously start with a small handful of APs to test in my environment before doing a more widespread push. I understand that bugs will happen, and documentation is tricky, but I also believe the community here has clearly shown that there is urgent need for improvement on how this info is communicated, and the time frame for resolution of major issues.
nelson's profile image
nelson
Ideally, there would be a link to the release notes right on the page offering the update/upgrade. These release notes should be complete, and reverse chronological with newest information at the top. This link should be easy to find, so people can be informed properly BEFORE they undertake clicking any buttons to run updates.

Thank you.