Using something like an MX85 as wan router for a C1300 series lan

[Timekeeper8]

Hey everyone, I need a new WAN router/security appliance. I really like the look of the MX 85 and MX series routers in general. My only thing is I’m new to the Meraki family and I already use C1300 series switch’s as my main infrastructure for my LAN. I was wondering if anyone thought I would have a problem with using a Meraki MX series router with cC300 switch’s. I know this is not a catalyst forum, but I don’t see why they would have a problem if I configured the switch and router with compatible IP’s. I know I would then have two dashboards to configure the network as Meraki and Catalyst use different configuration methods, but it sounds like it would work fine, just maybe a little extra setup and maintenance effort. If anyone thinks this would work or knows of a reason that I would hit a wall please let me know! Thanks for the help! 

Note: I don’t have the money for Meraki switches right now, but I really like the MX appliances features. Much simpler than C8300/8200 series stuff.

[alemabrahao]

If you have a public IP available it is totally possible, you just need to assign the IP to the Switch and create a default route pointing to the MX.

[Timekeeper8]

Awesome! That’s kinda what I was thinking, just wanted make sure I wasn’t missing anything!👍

[alemabrahao · Accepted solution]

In fact, you don't even need a public IP for the switch, just create a link network between the switch and the MX (/30) and point the default route to the MX.
See this document.

https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Recommended_Topologies/MX_and_MS_B...

[Timekeeper8]

Awsome! Thanks 

[alemabrahao]

To be quite honest, I personally prefer this approach.

Using an L3 Switch as the network core to route all internal traffic and the MX only to control what goes to the Internet.

Some people think it's simpler to leave everything on the MX, but I think I prefer to separate it into layers. The only traffic I would leave on the MX as a gateway would be to the Guest network and DMZ, to isolate communication with my internal network. 😄

[Timekeeper8]

Fantastic, I’m glad I’m not crazy for thinking this would be a good idea, haha. Thanks a lot alemabrahao!

[PhilipDAth]

I'm mostly of the opposite view, I prefer the routing on MXs.  🙂

It's because a lot of the features only work when the MX is used as the default gateway, such as client group policies (which are applied based on MAC address).

Also if you use a non-Meraki L3 switch you will get poor analytics out of the dashboard because nothing in Meraki land will be able to see the client's MAC address to perform tracking.  No client usage info.  No traffic analytics.  No clicking on a client to look at their traffic patterns.  No client connectivity graphs.  Limited AI assisted fault detection.

It's like losing half of the Meraki dashboard functionality you paid for.