Yup, I just encountered a very similar situation with this same model
card!
It wouldn't stay associated for more than a few seconds with my AP at
work which uses LEAP authentication.
At home it would associate. But it would drop packets every now and
then.
The PCLP CRC Error stats were horrendous - as many errors as good
packets.
An older 340 PC-Card adapter had no such problems. And a very low
PLCP CRC error rate.
Partial solution: I got my laptop distributor to swap PCI-350 cards
under warrantee. The new card stays associated and appears to work.
However the PLCP CRC error rate is still horrendous. It seems that
when
it is in an "excellent signal" area it get about 1 in 10 errored
packets.
In weaker areas the error rate rises to 1 to 1 again.
Looks like a bug or design flaw to me; considering that the 340 error
rate is well below 0.1%.
The only other explanation I can think of is that putting a WiFi card
inside a Laptop on the mini-PCI bus near my 1.8GHz Pentium is just not
a good idea - probably a very noisy RF environment!
I'd appreciate hearing/seeing comments from anyone else with PCI 350
Cisco cards.
(E-Mail Removed) (TJ) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...
> Setup:
>
> CA: PCI 350 Adapter (Cisco)
> AP: Cisco Aironet 1100
> ACU: ver. 6.1
> AP: IOs 12.2(4)JA - firmware: 5.1
>
> My PCI-350 (Cisco) adapter will lose association with it's access
> point every 5 secondes, and reassociate with the same AP about
> 5 seconds later, very regurarly ..
> Also, I seem to be getting a lot of PLCP CRC errors with this
> connection.
> I'm using very short cabling, all tested fine (fluke).
> I've tried stopping the Zero wireless config service, but that doesn't
> help
> either.
>
> The problem goes away when I select <No additional authentication -
> Open auth>
> and loose the MAC authentication. However, this leaves the network
> open to
> everyone who knows the SSID and WEP key, taking away 33% of the
> current
> security.
>
> Since this is only a Proof of Concept setup, and I will be using PEAP
> later on,
> this is not a life-threatening problem.
>
> However, if anyone has encountered this problem before: please post
> your findings, either good or bad.