VMX now available on premises!

[PhilipDAth]

I wanted to make a special call-out after a document update by @CameronMoody.  The Cisco Meraki VMX can now be run on-premises if you are using Cisco UCS-C series servers and using Cisco's NFVIS virtualization system.

https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/MX_Installation_Guides/vMX_Setup_Guide_for_NFVIS 

[DarrenOC]

That's great...but why are we limited to UCS-C series servers?  Whats the timeframe for implementation onto none Cisco servers?  Off the top of my head surely its cheaper to procure a physical MX at this point...especially if a new deployment.

[Bruce]

If you’re only looking for a single MX, then the hardware appliance is the best option. I believe this is really a play for MSPs who may need many MXs in a rack, now you can put multiple (virtual) devices in a single RU. The other positioning is for enterprises that need scale beyond the MX450; rather than deploying multiple MX450 you can deploy multiple VMX on the same hardware (although the redundancy might not be so appealing).

[PhilipDAth]

>That's great...but why are we limited to UCS-C series servers? 

That's like saying why not let MX software run on a competitors hardware, like Juniper.

That's like saying to your customers you don't mind if they use a competing MSP instead of you.

It just makes good business sense to use your own products that you already sell.

[cmr]

@PhilipDAth I'd guess it is to have a known base, a bit like when CUCM first could be virtualized, it had to be on UCS and then others followed, although we just used unsupported others with no issues...!

[jdsilva]

*premises

[cmr]

**site 😉

[jdsilva]

---

@cmr wrote:

**site 😉

---

Oh do I wish people would just use that word instead of using that completely wrong word. 

I also wish I was less OCD on this because I'm basically triggered all day every day with the massive amount of people who don't know (or care) about the difference 😞

[cmr]

Lol, @jdsilva I'm pretty OCD too and constantly get confused about which is right, so take it back to basics!

[DarrenOC]

**prem

[PhilipDAth]

>*premises

I always thought premises was the plural of premise.  Thanks for updating me on that.

[jdsilva]

---

@PhilipDAth wrote:

>*premises

I always thought premises was the plural of premise.  Thanks for updating me on that.

---

I think that's what most people think, but yeh... Two totally different words. 

Sorry for being the grammar police in your thread. No one likes that guy.. 🙂

And sorry for you not being able to unsee it going forward. Welcome to my hell.

[Inderdeep]

"on-prem"