Basic question but : electrical issue ?   Are device really going down, or just losing connection to the cloud   As @PhilipDAth  said, ip conflict seems a good start to look at also ... View more

- Just make sure that this particular vlan is appearing everywhere from MS410 to the device (trunk ports, access ports) - No special access list are configured   Packet capture to confirm DORA steps of DHCP should help to see what is going on ... View more

👍 ... View more

what is the ip you have on the interface of the ORBI that is facing the MX interface ... View more

Whether yo put your Orbi gear (never had to deal with that kind of device) in something like bridge mode, and MX gives DHCP to devices behind Orbi gear   Or   Create a transport subnet (ex 192.168.100.0/30) between MX interface and Orbi interface Put 192.168.100.1 on MX interface facing Orbi Put 192.168.100.2 on Orbi interface facing MX   Create a static route in MX: to reach subnet 192.168.1.0 (Orbi), go to 192.168.100.2   Create a route in Orbi to reach (whatever you need that is managed by MX), go to 192.168.100.1     you cannot have 192.168.1.1 on MX and Orbi ... View more

1- I've managed in the last days to make few tests   If we are talking about the same 'Priority' parameters :     then, by testing, I saw Upload and Download were shaped by this parameter   I had 3 devices, each one connected to one of those subnets   I set up the Uplink configuration to 7Mbps to simplify calculation,     keeping in mind that Priority High = 4/7 of Uplink config, Normal = 2/7 and Low =1/7   I downloaded big files with the 2 devices that were in Normal and Low Priority subnets, to saturate the link   At the same time, I was making speedtests with the device that was in High Priority subnet.   I got 4 Mbps download with the High Priority device, which fits calculations   I cranked up Uplink config to 14 Mbps, just to be sure   I got 8 Mbps download, which also fits calculations     And it also worked with Upload tests   2- And for point #2, yes Bandwidth limit will override Priority bandwitdh ... View more

Cause I was wondering   If the MX recognizes that packets in incoming (download) are destined for its VoIP vlan for example and that download bandwidth is now saturated, would it be able to do the same Priority behaviour (as upload) and start to guarantee a certain amount of download bandwidth   But so I guess not   thanks,     ... View more

Hey, bringing back this one   1- So If I get right : it is said : Specifying a traffic shaping rule as High, Normal, Low guarantees a certain fraction of the uplink to each priority level   And by uplink, Meraki means upload    So uplink in this doc doesn't mean 'the link above' , which would mean the MX Internet Interface. And would include upload and download   Cause yeah I'm wondering : is Priority applied to download and upload ?   2-  And I understand that in Traffic shapping rules, Bandwidth limit could affect Priority.   Let say Priority High (4/7) would guarante 10 Mbps (calculated with Uplink configuration), and Bandwidth limit is set to 5 Mbps. So Priority would be stopped at 5Mbps ?   thanks, ... View more

Here is a note from Meraki, and it worked, even if we have 1 MX and 1 Watchguard instead of the 2 MXs in their explanation   When configuring NMVPN connections between 2 MXs in different organizations that are running MX15 code and above that are not using a UserFQDN and are NATed behind an upstream device, please ensure that the remote ID field of the NMVPN peer is filled out with the private IP address of the remote NATed MX.   Our setup:   1rst site: an MX that is NATed behind another device, getting 192.168.x.x on its Internet port   2nd site : Watchguard with ISP Public IP     At both sites, we had Remote ID parameters configured with both Public IP   S2S non-meraki vpn nerver came up, until we configured the remote ID field in Watchguard with the 192.168.x.x of the Meraki.   S2S VPN came up right away ... View more

I've overriden it here for local time zone in my wireless network for a specific site X     But in the general template it is still this:     So:   Does it mean that on that specific site X, APs will upgrade Wednesday 1 am (taken from template), but @ Toronto UTC -5 time ?   thanks, ... View more

Hi,   But as I see, there is nothing concerning the MR upgrade in the other part of this network (I've split the networks to be able to bind configuration template only for the wireless)       is there something I'm misunderstanding   thanks, ... View more

@PhilipDAth    When you say 'settings stick' to the user, do you know how ?   MAC adress, username/password, etc....     thanks ... View more

Hey Jason   Yeah might have been a little hard on the 'real' term 🙂   I just meant private IP --> to Public IP --> to private IP back-and-forth   I wonder now what is meant an the end of this topic that true SourceNAT is not supported.....   https://community.meraki.com/t5/Security-SD-WAN/NAT-hairpin-question/td-p/55741    thanks for your details,     ... View more

  thanks, ... View more

Hi GiacomoS,   One example or reason for that is that we could have a Guest subnet  that we want to be able to access LAN webserver.   But : we don't want to give them access to any LAN, and no internal DNS is available.   So we want them to go out and reach Public IP of MX, and then MX would realize it is destined for itself, and make them immediately come back in,  to reach LAN webserver.    So yeah, a real NAT loopback ( or Source NAT, Hairpinnig, U-Turn NAT or NAT Reflection as I've seen all around) is not a confirmed official feature for now ?   if we want to create a real Hairpin, which is : LAN host only knows real Public IP of  MX Internet port to reach LAN webserver. Is MX able to handle this kind of request from host and create functional back-and-forth traffic ?   thanks, ... View more

yes    that answers my question   thanks, ... View more

Hi UCcert,   But if the client vpn service is already enabled, the admin in Guest Ambassador mode should be able to create and authorize client vpn users ?   thanks , ... View more

Hi RubenL   Only one tunnel ... View more

Thank you for your explanations   I'm still wondering, is there a way to officially configure : ''Users use 2.4 ghz, Mesh use 5 ghz ', so that it is completely separated by configuration   Because:   1- If a user can be 'near' the beam of the 5ghz antennas, he might be able to connect to 5ghz right ?   2- Meraki would theorically still be able to mesh on 2.4 Ghz, if it would be te best mesh ( which should not happen with 5ghz sector antennas)     If at least we could assign an ssid to use only 2.4ghz, that way we could be sure that users are only using 2.4 Ghz. Option that cannot be chosen here:     We 'can ' configure it here , but is this going to shutdown 5ghz for the meshing operation ?         So if also we could configure somewhere to say : 'Mesh, use only 5ghz'...     thanks, ... View more