This is exactly what is holding me back as well. They had this in the beta of 16 and eventually fixed it. I'll be very happy to drop Brightcloud and move to Talos. They're much more on top of it.
Its being rolled out in batches (as far as I understood) and not as a one-shot operation worldwide. Just give it a little time. 👍
I upgraded on Monday, opened a ticket with Support on Tuesday asking why the option isn't there...we're waiting on devs to get back to Support on why the option is absent
edit: think my Support engineer is in the thread 🙂
"MX84 and MX100 appliances have significantly reduced VPN throughput."
What does significantly mean? 5%, 35%?
Please test and provide specific information on VPN throughput limit for those platforms on this firmware.
I've had cellular connectivity problems (via USB modems and built-in modems) on several MX devices after upgrading them to MX 17.6 and created a support case, but am curious if others are experiencing similar odd cellular-related issues on MX 17.6.
Here are the details of my cellular issues, if anyone's curious:
- I upgraded a MX68CW from MX 17.5 to MX 17.6, which broke cellular functionality. The built-in cellular modem always says "connecting", but never gets to "ready" or "active". I rolled back the MX68CW to MX 17.5 and cellular functionality was restored. This device is using the built-in cellular modem.
- I upgraded a MX64W from MX 16.16 to MX 17.6, which broke cellular functionality. The USB modem is not even detected. I rolled back the MX64W to MX 16.16 and cellular functionality was still broken (the "Cellular" section on the appliance page just shows a spinner that never changes). This device is using an Inseego SKYUS DS USB modem.
Interesting. I had the opposite result with built-in cellular on our MX67C devices, they wouldn't properly take APN override on MX 15.44 (among other cellular connectivity issues) but when we upgraded to MX 17.6, the APN override worked right away and it resolved a few other cellular issues.
For USB modems, it does say (in the 17.6 patch notes) that certain models don't work with USB cellular but it doesn't list the MX64W, strange. It does seem that Meraki's support for USB cellular modems seems to be lacking ever since they released the built-in models and the MG line.
"New USB modem approvals are currently on hold until further notice. All ongoing evaluations for USB modems will be updated on this page as soon as completed. We recommend to upgrade to the integrated/MG models for cellular connectivity and reach out to your sales contact."
That doesn't sound very promising....
Have one customer where 7 MX68CW were upgraded to 17.6 and now 3 are having the same "connecting" issue you describe. Trying a rollback on one to see if it fixes the issue.
For the MX68CW, we wound up rolling it back to 16.16, then re-upgrading to 17.6 again. At that point, the built-in cellular started to work as expected again.
In our case with Meraki for the MX64W, it definitely does not work on 17.6, no matter how many times you roll it back and re-upgrade it to 17.6. After spending some time with support, they marked it as unexpected behavior and are sending it up to the product team.
Good to know. This location is actually moving next week and I was hoping to have LTE up and running for the move. It will give me a chance to try upgrade to 17.6 again to see if I get better results.
I have to strongly agree. How can a release with significantly reduced VPN throughput as a known bug be a stable release candidate? This statement is concern enough to cause pause. We saw issues with MX16.16 and the SPF issue, reverted all our sites to MX15.44 and then updated one site, low risk, to MX17.6. I would like to know what significant means before updating our major sites.
@MSchwark MX84 and MX100 are both end of sale, hence the stable release candidate with qualifications state. I'm guessing we will get more of this as time goes by.
Now that is just ridiculous. No matter how many years it will be supported or sold for, what matters is amount of that devices in production. This is most heavily used MX in my organization of 2k+ networks.
So yes, Meraki should spend a couple of days of testing to measure the VPN throughput limitation, probably the meaning of VPN peers/clients has on that limitation too.
Can that be arranged?
@JDomagala I'm a customer too and hopefully you are right. Our SD-WAN consists of MX84s, MX100s, one pair or MX250s and a smattering of small home user devices. I won't be moving any of those to 17.x until it is either fixed (🤞) or we get a better idea of the level of reduction....
I wasn't excusing Meraki, just explaining how I think it can be classified as it is. I am running it on an MX84 at a large site as the public internet edge, where the VPN isn't therefore in use, and it has been stable there since 17.2 👍
P.S. in case you weren't sure, the green stars indicate Meraki All Stars, who are all either customers or resellers etc., not employees. Meraki employees have the green M ✅
Our MX250 seems to be ignoring the WAN Bandwith Limits we set for the different WAN Uplinks - anyone else seeing this Problem with the 17.6 Firmware?
We've just seen issues with 17.6 on MX's with RADIUS based wifi authentiction, it broke the auth piece and we've had to roll back a load of sites as it caused client connection issues, we have a ticket logged on the issue.
I do wish you could opt out of release candidate when on auto update to only get stable version code.
Yes, you can do this from the dashboard UI easily under firmware if within so many days of the update, if past that just manually force the stable version firmware to the MX.
Further issue with another customer who was moved to 17.6 now, this time related to content filtering categories changing between Brightcloud and Talos systems, this is mentioned it can change but whats frustrating is I can find no documentation to show a matrix or difference between old Brightcloud and new Talos databases, we've had to roll back a customer due to them complaining of it causing them issues.
Been expecting that to be an issue with certain customers. Went through the same situation with the updates to Layer 7 when going from 15.x to 16.x.