At the moment the MX range is like a premier league player's WAG.
To explain, the northern county of Cheshire is is very pleasant and full of desirable properties (like Greenwich, or Scarsdale or Bronxville for East Coasters) so is choc full of flash money. Dry northern humour says of these otherwise admirable women, something along the lines of "that's all fur coat, no knickers" it is even in the Oxford dictionary.
Back to the MX, too much it doesn't do -
in no particular order and with no pretense at being comprehensive
- IGMP proxy (for multicast)
- can't provide access to Chromecast devices from a different VLAN (unlike Bonjour)
- no IPv6 (and don't even contemplate tunnelling, please)
- can't put a local IP address on WAN uplink
- no IKEv2 (forst published 2005 - Internet standard 2014)
as the dictionary definition says - Have an impressive or sophisticated appearance which belies the fact that there is nothing to substantiate it. The MX is in need of love and attention. Cisco manages to do it.
@uberseehandel
@BHC_RESORTS wrote:
IGMP proxy (for multicast)
I'm curious on your use case for this. Hardly ever see multicast used in most environments.
Well different technologies in different parts of the world.
In North America corporations make extensive use of video conferencing over internal networks. Multicast makes a lot of sense in this situation, it helps prevent duplicate streams overwhelming the network (not unlike Akamai). In Europe and East Asia a slightly different configuration is used to distribute premium subscription TV content. As the telcos, who also happen to be content distributors, like to make efficient use of their own networks, they chose to use multicast. These telcos, mostly the original PTT incumbents, also provide managed services. They need the equipment they use to provide and mange services to be able to handle fixed, mobile, VoIP, broadband and television subscriptions. If it can't do VoIP and television, it is not nearly as popular as it could be.
I will be watching the Winter Olympics live from Korea in 4K TV, not having multicast for something like that is very expensive for the carrier/ISP. The most popular sport on television in most of the world is football (soccer in the USA). The most watched leagues globally are the Champions League (top European teams) and the premier leagues of the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and France, even in East Asia. Getting 4K TV is a big part of this.
Delivering managed services to bars with premium sport on TV is big and profitable business.
These premium services go beyond sports, so many professional practices will have multicast capability as part of their corporate infrastructure, but also they are able to handle the version that the subscription services make use of. Certainly I saw the the TV in the doctors waiting room showing multicast channels.
@uberseehandel
@jhouts wrote:Agreed. The phone carriers push out an update last week that broke our phone VPN's for all carriers except ATT. This is directly impacting our business as our sales people can't VPN into our network to do their demos. I am the | | close to telling Meraki to pick up their gear. v6 is 15 years old and there is no excuse for lack of support.
I can't find a flaw in your argument. The entire MX line probably needs replacement.
For our own distributed environment we are placing a BrandX gateway ahead of each MX because that gives us IPv6, hideous IoT and multicast coverage, that Meraki simply does not address.
If Meraki does come up with an MX alternative, I seriously hope that they adopt the principal of zonal security.
@uberseehandel
