Meraki

cmr · ‎Nov 5 2020

@PawelG indeed, you only appear to be able to *upgrade* to 27.5.11 from an out of date MR version as it is labelled as a previous bata, see below with a network running 27.5:

cmr · ‎Nov 3 2020

We have been running firmware 15.x for over a year now and our MX250 HA pair are currently on 15.37. We haven't seen any service affecting issues and you can always roll back.

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

Well done everyone, keep up the good work 👏 🥂🎉

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

Has anyone here actually seen issues with iSCSI switches that as mentioned above can happen? I ask as the switches we use are HP or Cisco 10-12 port ones for ~£800 each. We don't overload them but do have up to 7 ports connected with two being server only, three being server and storage and two being storage only. Data rates average about 400Mb/s writing but a lot of the data is video streaming so pretty constant rate. Reads are much less. The only issues we see are cabling issues with Dell 10GbE Cu ports not liking most cable connectors...

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

@mugrene If you are referring to an iSCSI switch then Meraki switches can handle that traffic, but it really does depend on how many servers and SAN nodes you have, along with the characteristics of each. The most common iSCSI switch requirements are jumbo frames (over 1500 bytes) and large buffers on each port. However we do have a number of iSCSI SANs and the vendor we use (Pivot3) does not use jumbo frames and as long as you have the hosts and storage nodes connecting at the same speed then the buffers are not so important.

cmr · ‎Nov 1 2020

@sebas speak to support, they should be able to install one of those versions for you.

cmr · ‎Oct 30 2020

@sebas in Meraki world there is always* only one stable firmware version, up to one stable release candidate and one beta. Hence with 14.5 arriving as beta and neither 12.29 not 12.30 having been popular enough to make it to stable release candidate, they both disappear. * If there are different currently supported hardware models that do not all support the same firmware train then you may see two in one section. A current case in point is the MR firmware where 802.11ac wave 2 and newer devices use 27.x, whereas older devices use 26.x

cmr · ‎Oct 29 2020

@RonW indeed you have 300-400Mb on each link.

cmr · ‎Oct 29 2020

@Dennoh For Meraki in general it doesn't seem to use reverse lookup to DNS servers to identify client hostnames. Sometimes you get a name, sometimes the horrible mDNS name etc. If they are your clients then unless you have thousands, or they change all the time, do a lookup yourself or reference an asset tracking system for the MAC if you have one and then edit the client records. The Meraki network will then remember the name you have entered and show it in preference to the other options.

cmr · ‎Oct 29 2020

@MerakiMed what @KarstenI meant is that if you set up the WAN2 port, then connect it to a normal LAN access port, the firewall will register that way stably, allowing you to play with WAN1 and figure out the issue. You should be able to convert it at the moment when the device appears in the dashboard as that feature is available (maybe only in 15.x firmware)

cmr · ‎Oct 28 2020

@Kacy as you have static ARP and static IP, why not just use a DHCP reservation, it gives the same outcome and I'd be willing to bet that it fixes the problem.

cmr · ‎Oct 27 2020

@Kacy if it is only used for public internet then why not use the DHCP server on the ASA, it clearly can get an IP from a DHCP server or you would not see the alert. A DHCP reservation is where you set the MAC address of the device to always be given a particular IP on the DHCP server, a static IP is a manually configured address and although appearing similar is not the same. You can set the reserved IP on the DHCP server to be the currently assigned static IP so the firewall rules work. If the statically assigned IP is not in the public range and there is a trunk to the AP, the VLAN that you want the AP's management port to be on does not have a DHCP server or possibility of relay then you will need to stick to the static IP method.

cmr · ‎Oct 27 2020

@---Jim--- it works fine on our MXs running 15.x, see below a public internet connection that is nearly all download, the lines only diverge noticeably for a moment when there was a brief upload spike by the green arrow: Totally what I'd expect for that kind of user base.

cmr · ‎Oct 27 2020

@Kacy I'd change the AP to get its IP address from DHCP and that should clear the issue. There is very little point in configuring static IP addresses on Meraki APs and if you really need it to stay the same then use a DHCP reservation.

cmr · ‎Oct 27 2020

Not everyone is full stack Meraki. We have ~150 Meraki devices including ~25MXs but they are not used for corporate Internet edge. Our existing Internet edge devices do have full ipv6 support so MR and MS ipv6 support would have some value to us, albeit it would be much more useful if the MX SD-WAN tunnels could carry ipv6 over ipv4 even if they didn't have full ipv6 support.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@tfriedrich I don't believe so, there is progress on ipv6 for MR that is in closed beta but I don't believe there is an MX ipv6 beta yet available.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@GIdenJoe exactly that, it is a stacked line chart where upload is stacked over download giving total. I do agree that when you have two WANs you lose that, is just a bit dumb.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@LFA-CMK it would be fairly unusual to run a web caching solution on a 1Gb+ pipe as unless you have a lot of frequently accessed static content, the time taken to look up static components of a page outweighs the time taken to just download it again. Your mileage will vary of course!

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

One point to note: you will need a Cisco RPS2300 redundant power system if you want power supply protection as the MS225/210 have one built in PSU and the RPS connector whereas the MS250 has the option for a second PSU.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

Yes that's how I'd do it, IDF switches pure L2 with MDF switch stack doing L3 routing.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@GFrazier yes, we have 16 SVIs and a default route (so @Claes_Karlsson may be correct that you can have 16 of each...), we also have another VLAN that doesn't have an SVI as it is the management VLAN.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@Claes_Karlsson MS225 L3 limitations are only that it is static routes only and 16 routed subnets. We use them as the routing core at our HQ and didn't have any issues. We use an MX for the DHCP.

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

@SchoolITMan what was it that caused the change, upgrading to 27.x, or something else in the environment?

cmr · ‎Oct 26 2020

Whereas MS250 can be a DHCP server and has more routing options than simple static routes. Also I *think* that MS225/210 are limited to a total of 16SVI and static routes combined (though I may be wrong.

cmr · ‎Oct 23 2020

@DerikA as you have said L3 routing devices need static IP addresses, as for the L2 MSs and all MRs I go dynamic these days as there really is very little point in having static IPs from a management point of view as you don't manage them by directly connecting them. The only reason you might, is if you have a legacy SIEM solution or SNMP monitoring solution that you want to talk directly to the individual devices.

About cmr

cmr

Community Record

Badges