Mitel 3300 7.x.x upgrade to 9.0.1.17 - DHCP Fail

[TimGuyUK]

Strange one.

Ive got a mitel 3300 on vlan 4 / subnet 192.168.4.x layer 3 router through the core switch to most of the other workstation vlans too.

Upgrade to 9.0.1.17 last night and now any tagged 'dual' handset on the 192.168.4.x subnet wont tftp download. Gets dhcp and pings for about 5-10 secs and then reboots.

Any untagged 'dual' handset on another range (with the same scope options) works fine.

Any 'Single' port handsets also work not only on the workstation ranges but also untagged on the 192.168.4.x range.

I have yet tried going back to 7.x.x and pulling my hair out what it can be. Ive tried using the dhcp on the mitel box (as it was), moving back to the win box dhcp (which it was before that, and was deactivated)

I thought it might be the new option 125 so Ive tried it with and without that on the internal dhcp and on the win box. Nothing.

Nothing else has changed vlan wise. Im sure its a bug, or a bad upgrade. I have tried to do a restore onto it with the same dynamics but still the same.

Any ideas anyone?

Tim

 

[tlpeter]

Turn dhcp off and on and reboot the system
Dhcp needs a reboot to be activated and maybe something went wrong

Indeed you are right about option 125
Be sure it is setup correctly !!!


ACA - Implement IP Office
ACS - Implement IP Office
ACA - Implement IP Telephony
ACA - Voice Services Management
______________
Women and cats can do as they please and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea!

 

[TimGuyUK]

Yeah. Ive never know what does and doesnt require a reboot on changing the dhcp server so I always do it even on a small option change.

Its been rebooted and dbms save'd too. The dhcp is defo picking up it just appears the 3300 is refusing connections but why from only tagged vlan 4 and not from untagged vlan 4 or untagged vlan 'other where as it was working the moment before the upgrade and nothing in the networks been touched.

 

[kwbMitel]

I had the same problem upgrading from Rel 7 to 8.

The issue is with the Priority being handed out via DHCP or with Statically assigned phones.

New fields were introduced at rel 8 and they must be populated.

Prior to Rel 8, the phones would "Assume" priority 6 and this field was not mandatory. The phone now needs to be told or it will fail to boot.

*******************************************************
Occam's Razor - All things being equal, the simplest solution is the right one.

 

[TimGuyUK]

Thanks for your reply.

Im just doing a install rather than an upgrade with databasebase restore.

so, your setting is option 125 with priority 6 across the board?

Did you set anything on the system as well as the option 125?

 

[kwbMitel]

Option 125 should be sufficient with 6's across the board.

When statically assigning, there are now 3 fields that need the 6 as well.

*******************************************************
Occam's Razor - All things being equal, the simplest solution is the right one.

 

[Webmany]

What hands out the vlan info on the default vlan on the tagged phones? Have you tried removing all vlan info from DHCP and trying the phones?

 

[Mitelpassion]

kwbmitel is 100% correct. chances are you've got static vlans and don't have l2 priority set on the the sets or the DHCP server that dishes out IP's and the rest of the options, don't have l2 priority.

If you have static vlans then you HAVE to do a static entry into the phone even though your dhcp server for that vlan has the l2 priority.

have had around 5 sites with this issue. latest around a week ago.

good luck

 

[Mitelmatt]

Were you using the double fetch option with a dhcp server on the native vlan or were you using CDP / LLDP on the switches?

 

[TimGuyUK]

Well Id like to say I pin pointed it and resolved it properly BUT Im afriad the only one step that resolved it was to do another install from the ICP Windows manager / ftp and use the backup from the previous week instead of the full install / upgrade backup that was done during the orignal install/upgrade.

Whether it was the backup file or whether it was a bad install I dont know.

Sorry I couldnt pinpoint it more.