@bford1  That's a real pain for you. Did you get much joy in the end. I too am on the same path. I realise that you cannot import combined networks, so I want to start with the MX's, then maybe bind a pre-defined template, depending if that works or not. Did you have your serial numbers pre-defined per location ? ... View more

This sounds like DNS and similar to my internet experience up until recently. I had been using a 4G Huawei modem into my Meraki, and i had problems. Lots of them. All DNS related. Once i moved to a VDSL connection, the issue was gone. They manifested themselves in almost the exact same way.   What internet connectivity have you got? ... View more

@PhilipDAth I don't follow you.  If I have a voice subnet on my LAN that needs to traverse a L2L tunnel, I don't want to put an SVI for that subnet on the MX and expose L2 voice traffic to my edge device.  I would rather my core L3 device receive those packets first, apply any QoS and then route them (using default route) to the firewall.  But because the MX doesn't have an SVI on the voice subnet in this scenario, it won't like receiving packets stamped with a different VLAN. This effectively wastes the default route.    Some topology for discourse:   data VLAN 1 = 192.168.1.0/24 voice VLAN 2 = 10.10.10.0/24   L3 gw = 10.10.10.1, 192.168.1.1  [default route: 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.2] MX = 192.168.1.2 (assume it has route for voice sub)   phone 10.10.10.2 => L3 gw 10.10.10.1 => default route => MX 192.168.1.2 => ** VLAN mismatch**   An ASA does not have a VLAN mismatch problem when packets from other subnets are routed to it.  Routing is a function of L3, not L2, so why is the MX looking at VLAN tags on L3?   Routing happens at L3 so I don't see the value in enforcing the VLAN match.  ... View more

Indeed congratulations all! ... View more

Powerline extenders can work okay, but they tend to be hit or miss. In the best scenarios I've seen maybe 10-20% of the advertised link speed (so like 100-200mbit), but for some reason in certain settings I've just had them drop out repeatedly (especially when certain appliances come on), or fail to be able to work across certain junction boxes or powerstrips too.   It's worth a shot, but honestly in a lot of sites even without line of sight, I've found a wifi based meshing solution or P2P solution to deliver better bandwidth.   I've joked that powerline extenders should just cheat and carry a dual wifi radio backhaul with internal antennas....   But in all seriousness, reliability is the big question. I've had cases where the connection quality is highly variable and it was frustrating finding any sort of pattern or explanation as to why. I've more or less sworn off the technology and I'd rather add more intermediate wifi backhaul hops to deal with this problem. ... View more

Also available without radius: https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Encryption_and_Authentication/IPSK_Authentication_Without_RADIUS   ... View more

True... but do you have an other "enterprice" a-brand fully cloud managed full-stack option? Sometimes a bit more controll or logging would be fine. But until this moment i'm not runnign into any day-time issues. Only thing that would be handy would be mtu size for wan in the portal. ... View more

Yep, that is also the only time I use products from Ubiquity. AirMax or AirFiber is the way to go.   Just watch that fresnel zone (the higher frequency of your link, the smaller the zone. Do some calculations, and watch that landscape for obstructions 🙂 ).   And please check your local regulations for allowed frequencies and transmit power, they are different around the worldm and from country to country.   ... View more

You should block access to the Internet at the point where your network connects to the Internet.  In a Meraki world, this would normally be done on an MX.   Being a PLC network, can you just leave it as a L2 network with no layer 3 configurations?  Then it can't talk to anything else which is not on the PLC network. If you need remote access to the PLC network then using a jump host is more secure.  It has one NIC attached to the PLC VLAN, and one NIC connecting to the rest of the network. ... View more

Be careful as if you leave it in the inventory but not in a network, it can be claimed by someone else.  Best option if you don't like the option of waiting for a week is to create a spare network to park unused Meraki hardware in, access points or other. ... View more

To be fair, if one of the resources is at 100%, that graph should be showing that imo. I know that having more insight into resource percentages has been requested by others before. I'd definitely make a wish and leverage my local Meraki SE & AM. ... View more

@AlexanderN wrote: @jbright this thread should be good to close, I believe? I'm going to go ahead and mark @MerakiDave's response as the solution for better visibility when people happen upon this thread. @jbright do let us know if you need any further info though! ... View more

To clarify also. I used to only have a single connection from MX to CORE 1. Since the MX doesn't support port-channeling etc.  Wanted to keep things simple.   Had it like that for almost 2 years, until CORE 1 at a site had an issue, which ended up taking down the guest network which the MX was the gateway of etc.  Not a huge deal to have onsite move the cable, but an annoyance none the less. After that I said bah-hum-bug, and so they connect to both now, and STP so far has never caused me any grief. ... View more

A colleague of mine, @Joan_P just made a community post with some Youtube videos that he made about troubleshooting VPN. They include some great walkthroughs on how to troubleshoot VPN issues. I would highly encourage everyone to subscribe to his channel as he has some really great content.  ... View more

I’m sensing that you don’t like Facebook @NolanHerring 🤣😂   It is very much a time wasting App ... View more

I get pinged all the time by the Apaches, but I am deliberately trailing my coat-tails, as it amuses us all when they do the bee-dance.   I would suggest you try turning down the TX value as much as you can whilst maintaining adequate WiFi coverage, don't go looking for trouble, as it were. Also, if the signals don't reach the APs, they won't react.   Some wallboard has foil on one side, for insulation purposes, it blocks WiFi pretty effectively. ... View more

Natural load balancing can also come from not using omni directional antennas. You have to think about the logic of a client. Assume you have an entryway into an office and the clients first connect to that AP. Then they go a little further in the office but still have plenty strength towards the first AP so they will never roam. The only way a client will actually join the AP right on top of it is if the user disables and re-enables the WiFi. So yes you have roaming suggestions from the AP's through 802.11v.  But in some spaces you might want to go MR42E with a patch antenna pointing straight down causing a more downtilt signal and a less spread out signal.  This will cause the clients to drop off one AP and connect to the next. ... View more

Welcome to the community! ... View more

Welcome to the community! ... View more

Welcome to the community! Congrats on your CMNA! ... View more

Welcome to the community! ... View more

Welcome to the Community! ... View more

Nice! ... View more

I had no time the past week to get on the phone and deal with this between my day job and home schooling my 4 kids and trying to keep up with the honey-do list. 😉  I finally called yesterday morning and continued debugging.   As I expected, my suspicions were confirmed and I was not losing my mind. The switch is behaving unexpectedly with IGMP snooping. It initially works when I relocate all the multicast receiver hardware onto the switch and I reboot my gateway router. It even makes it past the typical IGMP dead timer of 270 seconds. For unknown reasons at around the 7 minute mark, the receiver sends an IGMP leave report, even though the box is still tuned to the same video stream. At that point, the switch wipes all of the multicast forwarding and loses track of the router forwarding the source content to the group, even though the switch can still see IGMP reports from the router including the IGMP group in question coming across the uplink port.   The issue has been escalated to development to isolate and hopefully identify a firmware bug fix. I will update when I hear further information. ... View more