Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what exactly your issue is. Are you saying that the device is roaming when sitting still?  ... View more

I have some on 26.8.1 (United States) and I just set the power manual to max, and it went to 23dBm. So I suspect its due to domain regulation issue.     ... View more

You have your 'Target Power' range set from 5 - 30dBm   Your 'Transmit Power' is the value the AP is actually using.   Since you have default settings, the AP will determine (using magic) which power level it will use.    For whatever reason, it settled on 12dBm   You can manually change this to a different value, or, you can tweak your 'Target Power' range settings to not go below 16 for example.   Your power level will vary per frequency, and also depend on what country you are operating in, as far as 'max' goes. ... View more

For those of us (all of us I imagine) that have tried and true scripts that have been running for years without any hiccups using v0, do we need to do anything to adjust to all of these updates? ... View more

@SoCalRacer wrote: I will say this, we dropped Ubiquiti as our preferred network stack years ago and haven't looked back.   Ubiquiti Support = Forum only Meraki = 24/7/365   With Ubiquiti if you want to spend tons of time supporting it and working out kinks and doing all of that alone, to save some money then it is a good fit. Good support/warranty is worth it's weight in gold when you have a major issue. Haha, so let me be clear I'm not trying to start a vendor war here.   I use Cisco, Meraki, for many years in the corporate world. They are enterprise for sure. And obviously when it comes to support, you get what you pay for. Support to me for Ubnt is open a case to RMA, or go to forums lol. So yeah, that sucks.   At home however, I use what I can afford, and UBNT happens to fall into that category. I've been a big fan of them for many years on the wireless side because their products are rock solid for crazy pricing.  I hate seeing customers pay thousands of dollars for outdoor PTP networks that have licenses locking throughput, when a UBNT setup for 300 bucks can do the same and for more.   I've only recently started to branch out from their wireless to their other products. I like how they have a full stack from security appliance, to switches, to video security etc.  I prefer to keep the entire ecosystem the same (like Meraki for example). I just need to be able to afford it lol.   pfSense is another fantastic product, just a little more DIY on your side though.   For me the UDM-Pro which I just got recently has been a pleasant experience, however I did watch a good number of YouTube video reviews and it most certainly did have lots of bugs when it first hit (running 1.7.2 currently) and so far I have not run into anything yet (fingers crossed). I also have the Unifi switches, wireless, and video/protect for a full stack and loving it so far. 😃   ... View more

I'll just drop this here....   https://store.ui.com/collections/unifi-network-routing-switching/products/udm-pro ... View more

@webrama wrote: Hi Nolan Thanks for sharing this with us.  Do you have an updated script? Also, is this script written to only work on ansible since I see the import json, sys etc at the beginning of the script and not sure how I can automate this on windows task for example. Any help would be appreciated.   If your using Windows, then you can use WSL2 to run an Ubuntu app, or do it in a container etc., but probably easier to just use the Ubuntu app from the Windows store.   Import JSON is to import the json python library so you can parse the return data from the Meraki inventory API call, when receives the inventory and returns it as JSON data.   I should clarifiy 'ansible server' is really just a linux server i called ansible server because we were/are using it for other actual ansible tasks. However this is just python, sorry about the confusion. ... View more

Any update on the Verizon certification process? ... View more

You can't designate. Heartbeats for VRRP are sent out across all VLANs by default, and there is no way to configure them to do otherwise. At this point that designated VLAN is probably redundant logically, maybe not physically if you separated it out (not sure if that is worth it either). ... View more

Are you able to test it on 26.8.1 and report back ... View more

I might be misunderstanding something here but why not just only configure that device to only use that SSID? ... View more

Few things   1 - Do not make a unique SSID for each AP, that is going in the wrong direction 100% and does not allow roaming to work at all. 2 - Do not use NAT mode, this does not allow for proper roaming, you need to use bridge-mode and choose a specific VLAN for the single SSID   Clients will roam because the clients decide they want to, and using PSK it should be fast enough nobody will ever notice. NAT mode is desinged for single-AP coffee shop setups, each time you move from one AP to the other, you break all TCP sessions, so anything like wifi-calling etc., will hard drop each time.   Also I would make the SSID 5GHz only, and have another SSID that is 2.4GHz (support can enable the option for you to toggle 2.4 only mode if you ask them).  This will ensure that dual-band isn't giving clients any grief. Also turn off load-balancing setting.    Make sure your TX power levels are not all over the place. I would recommend changing the minimum data rate to 6Mbps as well for management frames since you only have a few AP's, making it higher won't make any difference and might hurt clients that are flaky.   You will see client disconnects often, its normal. They go to sleep, or simple turn off, roam, go out of range etc.  Channel width I would personally take a look at. Check the spectrum.  Is there a ton of other networks? If so, you might want to look at only using 40MHz or 20MHz.  80MHz is rare to get away with in business environments.   For the windows machines, make sure their drivers are updated for the wireless card (assuming Intel). 90% of the time its a driver issue. Android and Apple not much you can do about, they are usually rock solid anyhow. ... View more

Sounds like the MX does not have anything going on the would prevent WhatsApp from working. I would try reboot the MX, and then put your device in airplane mode (no cellular) and connect it to the wireless and try again. Also reboot the wireless router if you have one in the mix. ... View more

Do you have IPS/IDS/AMP features enabled? Or content filtering, any L7 rules etc.   Whitelist your client that is being blocked on WhatsAPP, to bypass all of those, and see what you get. Might be one of them is bugging out (reboot usually resolves). ... View more

I used a Verizon SIM in an MG21 and it worked for me (inside USA). I know Meraki and Verizon are having an issue right now, so every single time I get an MX67C for example, I have to open a case with Meraki TAC and have them 'allow' or whatever, the device to work on the Verizon network. Don't have to do that with AT&T. Something political on the back-end or something that is/was supposed to be resolved in the near future/far future. ... View more

Not surprised, the MR45/55 should be discontinued IMO. I don't think I've seen any successful deployments on that hardware, and there is no reason to ever buy it now that 2nd gen is out. ... View more

Well my concern is that on 26.8 its fine, and on 27.1 its got some latency issues. The only thing that changed is the firmware on the AP, so by default I'm leaning towards it being an issue on the AP side ... View more

@cmr  I think your onto something here, but I suppose its so be expected with a new firmware train.     I have a laptop with an AX200 (21.70.0.6) on an MR45 with 27.1, on 20MHz on channel 100 (no other networks on this frequency), no other clients on this AP, and I'm about 10 feet away from the AP.     I am getting the following on 27.1:   Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=21ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=13ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=19ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=25ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=24ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=12ms TTL=64       Downgraded firmware to 26.8, and things look much better:   Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=6ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64 Reply from 172.31.0.1: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=64   Adding @MerakiDave so he can run this up the flag pole. I was able to reproduce the issue (not as severe as @cmr example, but still easily noticeable) within 10 minutes of testing.  ... View more

Open a case with support. I have an MR45 I can test with as well. What driver version is your Intel card? Does it only happen with your laptop? What about cell phone, or other devices etc. ... View more

That is one of those things where it either will or wont work and you won't know unless you try it. 😃 If it works, then you'll be in business, but I probably would not expect more than 100Mbps on it. ... View more

Also what about firmware versions? Was this on 14.40? What about 15.x ? ... View more

Great blog post @CharlieCrackle Stumbled across it on Twitter and just posted about it not realizing you already posted here lol (have since deleted my other post). Do you know if this is specific to the 64 or any version MX? ... View more

So does that mean its false positives? And to ignore them? And that the authentication failure showing 10% isn't actually 10% and its much much lower type of thing? ... View more

@antonis_sp  - is that a known problem with 26.X train? or is that specific to MR45/55   I'm seeing that quite a few times on a PSK SSID I have and the PSK on the client machines are accurate so its like...what gives lol. ... View more