Meraki

cmr · ‎Jun 9 2021

I've been applying 28.1, but WiFi5 wave1 APs only update to 26.8.1 for that version, even thought both 28.1 and 27.7 include the security updates...

cmr · ‎Jun 8 2021

In addition to @Bruce's comment above, we actually run a setup like this where each site has 2 WAN connections from the MX pair, with either one or both as VPLS (L2 MPLS) circuits. At the main data centre the WANs are terminated on routed ports of a L3 switch stack and the MX250 pair are connected to them as single ended VPN concentrators, terminating all of the SD-WAN site-to-site connections. It's worked well for about 2 years now on 15.x firmware and although we got no-NAT enabled, we never used it as the user traffic all goes through the tunnels anyway, with only the MX to cloud traffic passing outside.

cmr · ‎Jun 8 2021

@ctx505 do you have an on-site CUCM server? We run exactly your setup (except the enterprise edge firewalls are a different brand) and Cisco SIP desk phones work just fine connected to an MX/Z3 in a user's home.

cmr · ‎Jun 8 2021

Wow that is fast, only 6 here, must try harder!

cmr · ‎Jun 7 2021

@RestaurantGuy as you go across the screen you have high usage first, then unique quantity and finally average usage per client. If I try to look at either weekly or last 30 days on that network the app just stops responding. If I go to the normal web dashboard weekly shows 33,348 clients and last 30 days stops looking at 50,100 clients but at least you can use the pages.

cmr · ‎Jun 7 2021

@RestaurantGuy the issues occur when there is a network with a large number of clients, as per the screenshot, how many clients do you have on a working network?

cmr · ‎Jun 6 2021

@Inderdeep I've edited my comment to make it clearer, thanks for pointing out the error!

cmr · ‎Jun 6 2021

@Inderdeep all of antennas for the MR46E are actually marketed as indoor antennas, even though they are not internal to the AP. Though it may or may not be possible to use them outside under a canopy... 😉

cmr · ‎Jun 6 2021

@Aslam if they can share the invoice with Meraki then you might be in luck. If it's the same company then surely the new management can access the accounts?

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

@WarrenG no offence taken, I was merely explaining the confusion 🙂

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

@WarrenG what you are referring to is internet load balancing, not SD-WAN. SD-WAN always needs a service or device at each termination point (location), hence the initial confusion.

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

@DarrenOC does that network complete on the iPhone app?

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

@WarrenG I was replying in an SD-WAN context (where both ends have an MX) as we run that setup and it works fine with TCP SIP inside the auto-VPN tunnels. As @ww said, if you go for a pure internet connection, as opposed to SD-WAN then you will get a drop from one ISP to another, but it should survive an MX HA failover.

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

Does anyone else have a network with a similar number of clients as shown on this network below, where they are able to select the weekly or monthly view: All I get when trying to select either of those is this:

cmr · ‎Jun 5 2021

For a lot of traffic @Inderdeep is correct, however with SIP it must be TCP SIP for this to work well, some SIP is UDP and then you will likely get a dropped call and have to redial.

cmr · ‎Jun 3 2021

Wireless firmware versions MR 27.7 changelog Important note When configured for this version, the MR12, MR16, MR18, MR24, MR26, MR32, MR34, MR62, MR66, and MR72 will run MR 26.8.2 which explicitly includes the pertinent security fixes noted below. Security fixes CVE-2020-11022 - https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-11022 (MR12/MR16/MR18/MR24/MR26/MR32/MR34/MR62/MR66/MR72) CVE-2020-11023 - https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2020-11023 (MR12/MR16/MR18/MR24/MR26/MR32/MR34/MR62/MR66/MR72) CVE-2020-24588 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-24587 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-24586 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26145 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26144 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26140 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26143 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26139 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26146 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26147 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26142 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-26143 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-wifi-faf-22epcEWu (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) CVE-2020-25684 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-dnsmasq-dns-2021-c5mrdf3g (Wi-Fi 5 MRs, Wi-Fi 6 MRs, MR12/MR16/MR18/MR24/MR26/MR32/MR34/MR62/MR66/MR72) CVE-2020-25685 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-dnsmasq-dns-2021-c5mrdf3g (Wi-Fi 5 MRs, Wi-Fi 6 MRs, MR12/MR16/MR18/MR24/MR26/MR32/MR34/MR62/MR66/MR72) CVE-2020-25686 - https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-dnsmasq-dns-2021-c5mrdf3g (Wi-Fi 5 MRs, Wi-Fi 6 MRs, MR12/MR16/MR18/MR24/MR26/MR32/MR34/MR62/MR66/MR72) Bug fixes General stability improvements Scanning radio may become stuck on a single frequency in some regulatory domains (Wi-Fi 5 MRs) MR may not forward buffered frames upon receipt of CTS from STA if the CTS did not follow the preceding RTS within a given time window (Wi-Fi 6 MRs) MR does not automatically detect Smart Antennas (MR42E) MR may experience frequent Ethernet carrier changes (MR36) MR was not applying the appropriate QoS DSCP tags to some egress packets (Wi-Fi 6 MRs) MR was generating SNMP ifOutErrors under normal 802.11 traffic scenarios (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) Known issues Sporadic packet loss & instability on Layer 3 roaming & Teleworker VPN SSID's (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs) UNII-2e channels not available for indoor APs in Israel IL regulatory domain (Wi-Fi 5 MRs/Wi-Fi 6 MRs)

cmr · ‎Jun 3 2021

@Donnie-C your graphs have very different scales, on the uplink graph you have sustained 24Mbps for about 2 minutes. The clients graph is set to show a day, so a 2 minute spike doesn't register. The data points on this graph represent the average over a window of something like 15 minutes.

cmr · ‎Jun 2 2021

@Cezar the old map used to show some basic location information with 2 APs but it was very inaccurate so the current location analytics only works with 3 APs or more

cmr · ‎Jun 2 2021

@Cezar how many APs do you have, the location information needs a minimum of 3 APs and for a client it needs to see 3 APs at any one time.

cmr · ‎Jun 2 2021

@Duijv023 I'd suggest you update to a current firmware release - 15.42.1 is the current stable release. We have been using v15 since 2019 and have not seen this issue on MX100s and MX250s

cmr · ‎May 30 2021

@mkattan the summary by @GIdenJoe is pretty good. But I'd strongly recommend the traditional Meraki switches like the MS350, or the MS355 if you can as it has better stacking and uplink options. The only reasons to go for the MS390 are stackpower (if it works) and the advanced features. If you don't need those then the MS355 is not going to give you half as much grief.

cmr · ‎May 29 2021

Or mayBe a VeRy diffeRent Proposed answer?

cmr · ‎May 28 2021

I'm going for a couple of thousand years ago.

cmr · ‎May 24 2021

I'd agree with @PhilipDAth that you go for one stack unless you cannot tolerate 2-3 minutes downtime when you need to do a firmware upgrade. However unless you need the advanced feature license then please don't go for MS390s, just take a look at the latest release notes posted here recently to see how many parts of the code aren't finished yet.

cmr · ‎May 24 2021

@himanshu29 12.33 was replaced by 14.22 as the stable release candidate. 14.22 is now a pretty good release (we run all our switches on 14.x).

About cmr

cmr

Community Record

Badges