Meraki

cmr · ‎Sep 21 2021

Thanks @BlakeRichardson I even have others running 14.29 without issues, I think something else is up as when I tried to downgrade the firmware it said it had completed but the switches didn't reboot...

cmr · ‎Sep 21 2021

@jay_b they are the same for 5GHz but the MR44 has half as many streams for 2.4GHz. MR36 2x2:2 for both MR44 2x2:2 for 2.4GHz but 4x4:4 for 5GHz MR46 4x4:4 for both MR56 overkill for my home Simples!

cmr · ‎Sep 21 2021

@Mhuns you'll need to get access to the existing organisation on the dashboard or set up a new organisation and get them to transfer the MX84 (and license) to you. Otherwise if you have the original purchase invoice then support can help.

cmr · ‎Sep 21 2021

We have a new MS120-8LP that is confusing the ports, the PoE seems reversed so PoE usage on port 1 shows on port 8 and to disabled PoE on port 1 you need to disable it on port 8... We have an older exact same model on same firmware without this issue so are trying the old 12.28.1 to see what that reports. Anyone else seen this before, excluding the MX port page that had similar issues in the few days we had it!?!

cmr · ‎Sep 21 2021

@Adam2104 I'm guessing that when you enable VLANs the MX changes from switched mode in the hardware to routed mode in software, but this is purely a guess. Years ago when I worked for a network vendor in design and test we had a switch that used store and forward most of the time, but if all active ports were at the same speed and duplex then it used cut-through. The latency was dramatically less and the throughput higher. As it was a distribution switch it was quite common for customers to be able to take advantage of this mode.

cmr · ‎Sep 20 2021

@Adam2104 The 16. release is considered a beta release (though the only option for newer appliances I think). There have been some performance issues reported and fixed between versions, perhaps this is another? I have an MX65 running 16.12 with the enterprise license and get the full 250Mbps on tests so clearly some devices are performing to spec on 16.12. Edited to remove dumb questions that were already answered...

cmr · ‎Sep 20 2021

@Baka you need cables with the C15 connector (the one with the notch cut out of it) - it is a high temperature connector and will have a cable rated for a higher temperature connected to it. You can easily get C15 to C14 cables.

cmr · ‎Sep 19 2021

@squidgy have you set any firewall rules on the 210s? We run vcsa 6.7 and have hosts all over the country connected via Meraki MXs and in two sites we have MS stacks. One site has 355s and the other 210s just like you MS firmware is latest 14.29 on 210s but has worked on multiple 14.x and some older 12.x firmwares from before 14.x existed. How are your hosts connected to the switches? Where is the vcsa in relation to the hosts? Is it a flat network or routed VLANs? What Cisco setup was replaced?

cmr · ‎Sep 18 2021

I'm guessing EE have got IPv6 to IPv4 working properly then, which is good 👍

cmr · ‎Sep 18 2021

@Djsky123 what firmware are you running and do you see an IPv6 public address? On 17.2.1 you see IPv4 and IPv6 public addresses for each WAN connection.

cmr · ‎Sep 15 2021

I've opened a case: 07014827 to see if something has simply got confused...

cmr · ‎Sep 15 2021

Thanks @Ryan_Miles I saw these in the event log that support your statement: However the sensor can see four APs that are all MR42s running 28.4 and one of them has a -67dBm signal So far I've tried rebooting the MT, multiple of the MRs, making sure Bluetooth is on and am now a bit stuck!

cmr · ‎Sep 15 2021

We've deployed some MT10s and some are seeing APs but not connecting. Does anyone have experience of what signal level is generally required for them to work without me slowly moving it towards the AP?

cmr · ‎Sep 13 2021

@Comstasis the MX65 has been EoS for some time now so that's to be expected, but there is still some hope that the MX64 will get included as it even survived the latest range realignment.

cmr · ‎Sep 13 2021

@KarstenI I'm guessing that @TechDude is doing some testing and this isn't production, as a $50 Cisco small business switch is fine for the WAN split.

cmr · ‎Sep 13 2021

@Comstasis we are using v16 on most of our MXs and it is perfectly stable in our experience. We do still have a few devices on v15 that we haven't upgraded yet and one on v17 and they are all also stable. I personally haven't used the AnyConnect client on Meraki v16 but it seems better than the previous client options already if you look at the community posts...

cmr · ‎Sep 9 2021

@ArielA we run an SD-WAN setup with 12 sites where 4 are using internet connections and 7 are using VPLS/MPLS connections. The main DC has both internet and VPLS/MPLS with the internet terminating on some other firewalls and the VPLS and MPLS terminating on a L3 switch with the default gateway pointing to those other firewalls. At that site the MXs are in single armed concentrator mode. Reading what I've written, we might need to do the same at the DR DC as if we lose the main site, the MPLS spokes will lose internet connection...

cmr · ‎Sep 9 2021

@Mark-SPS I don't believe the SFP+ ports on the 425 will work at anything less than 1Gbps, especially with the Copper transceivers. The below options are from an MS355X SFP+ port You might get a 100Mb fibre transceiver to work at that data rate.

cmr · ‎Sep 9 2021

@JorgeQ12 you need to use a 1Gb SFP in the MS425 for now to make the link work.

cmr · ‎Sep 7 2021

@FrederiqueC unfortunately MX isn't ideal for what you want as it does not support a subnet or VLAN mapping to a particular external IP. The inbound should work fine though.

cmr · ‎Sep 3 2021

Did you add the GoDaddy intermediate certificates to the server?

cmr · ‎Sep 2 2021

@SnowyHill below is a graph from one of our MXs The dark blue line shows the amount of traffic going into the MX from the WAN port, the light blue line is download + upload, so to see what you are sending out you need to look at the difference. As you can see we have a fairly constant (over the short time that the live view shows) download of about 300Mb/s and as it is a one armed concentrator (only the WAN 1 port is connected, no LAN ports used), the total is pretty much double (~600Mb/s). If you are seeing the scale up to 1.2Mb/s then yes, at that time the traffic passing through the MX really is that low. Below is the public internet firewall for a site that is currently closed, that shows just the Meraki 'chatter' where the devices are talking to the dashboard, with the spike at the end where I started looking at it: There is a set of longer term graphs on the Summary tab and there you can choose 2 hours, 1 day, 1 week or 1 month. Below is the 1 day graph for the low usage device showing that it does see traffic when the site is open, though the data points are averaged so you will not see absolute short term peaks:

cmr · ‎Sep 2 2021

And in case you still aren't sure, we have an 12 site solution, one site has MX250s, three have MX100s, four have MX84s, two have an MX65 and two have Z3s.

cmr · ‎Sep 2 2021

@GregErnest you are right in that only 128 rules can be defined. They are also stateless and therefore unidirectional so you kind of only have 64. Finally you cannot use ranges...

cmr · ‎Sep 2 2021

Yay, back in the MOTM team, thank you every single person who gave me kudos and awarded solutions. I love this community 🎉

About cmr

cmr

Community Record

Badges