Meraki

trunolimit · ‎Jul 2 2020

So this actually turned out to be super simple. That "default route" checkbox was the key.

soundman353 · ‎Jun 18 2020

The solution that worked for me was to place a switch in front of the remote MX to receive the trunk port from the ISP. The remote MX is connected to an access port. I used one of the public IP's that was assigned to us for the uplink, and set that as a static IP. On the main office side I placed a switch between the router and the main MX. The router and MX are connected to access ports, while the PTP connection is a trunk port. All of the ports are on the same VLAN. Thanks for the help.

cmr · ‎Jun 16 2020

Welcome to the friendliest community I've found. I started coming here when we were new to Meraki and asked a lot of questions, we now have about 150 Meraki devices of several types and love the ease of accessing the assorted features it provides. If you have any issues or aren't sure about something, just create a post and you will surely be steered in the right direction 🙂

Senan_Rogers · ‎Jun 15 2020

Hello Guys, Thank you for all your reply. I have found a way on how to simplify the failover Scenario below is a draft design for your reference. Again thank you.

cmr · ‎Jun 14 2020

I'm pretty sure that none of the MRs have IDS. MRs are intelligent wireless access points with some security features, mainly based around content access control. i.e. controlling what the wireless clients of them can access. MXs are firewalls and with the advanced or better licensing they include many of the features you are referring to including intrusion detection. A 'full stack' Meraki deployment would have MRs providing wireless access, MSs to connect them up, power them and allow wired device access and MXs to protect the solution from the outside world. MXs can of course also control outbound traffic. MSs do have security features to control what devices are able to use each port and how their traffic is routed and controlled.

akrammeraki · ‎Jun 6 2020

The problem is resolve after , reset network by smartphones and reoconnect

akrammeraki · ‎Jun 5 2020

It's work thank you

Nash · ‎May 29 2020

Ooh, glad you got it, but yeah. Never trust your ISP DNS unless you've absolutely got to for some reason. Hint: Haven't met a reason yet.

Shadius · ‎May 26 2020

In that case, they will just have to adjust to using military time since it keeps everyone on the same page about timing. Thank you all for the knowledge! It was very helpful.

Shadius · ‎May 21 2020

Thank you! This fixed everything!

Shadius · ‎May 18 2020

Thank you for this!

cmr · ‎May 15 2020

No worries, glad it was a simple fix 😎

QueeSo · ‎May 14 2020

Thank you very much for helping out here. Much appreciated!

cmr · ‎May 13 2020

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.

CarolineS · ‎May 6 2020

@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!

lbattilocchi · ‎May 4 2020

This seems to have done the trick! Thank you @cmr!

cmr · ‎May 3 2020

Excellent, glad it went well 👍

cmr · ‎Apr 23 2020

We run a 9 site network with MX84 or MX100 HA pairs at each edge site and an MX250 pair in the primary DC. Edge MXs are in routed mode with two WAN links and core MXs are in concentrator mode meaning you can have more than 2 links as they are terminated in a L3 switch. The primary CUCM server is at the main DC and we have about 5-600 handsets. Using the built in best for VoIP QoS rule we get perfect voice calls but sometimes the CUCM desk video calls aren't perfect. I was going to try the no-NAT feature on the 15.x MX train but while talking it through I can't see how that would make any difference as the auto VPN builds the tunnel to be LAN-LAN. Perhaps I'm wrong though? We load balance all other traffic and have created a low latency rule to shove latency sensitive traffic down the best path dynamically and in combination with the built in rule is seems excellent. All in all I'm very impressed how you can make realtime changes very easily and not only does it show the effects pretty much instantly with good graphs and flow logs, it doesn't disrupt ongoing traffic that you aren't selecting. A** Meraki

bayet · ‎Apr 13 2020

Oke, thanks you all for the comments. The reason is that the customer in any way never want the High to have bandwidth issues. So if there aren't High priority traffic, the Normal can still go on and use the bandwidth and High can reclaimed the bandwidth wen needed.

Uberseehandel · ‎Apr 11 2020

@PhilipDAth A dirty trick after my own heart! Thanks for that. I don't know, but I more than suspect that serving up synthetic MACs is there, but nobody has thought to implement it, yet. Fixed MACs are an exploitable weakness, per my TLA gnomes. As far as I can tell, MACs are used as part of the authentication process by multicast premium video service suppliers, so they expect to be able to interrogate a port for its associated MAC. I can do this on the Cisco IoT switches, and I have seen them turning up in other manufacturer's hardware.

cmr · ‎Apr 11 2020

Resolved in 12.12, possibly 12.11 as well but I didn't try that. Port has been running at 1GB for more than 24 hours since upgrading from 12.9

cmr · ‎Apr 1 2020

Forget does not completely delete the client. What it does is hide the client's name from view and in the background it anonymises the data associated with it at a later time. We found this out as if you forget a client that is blocked, the client remains blocked. You have to wait until the Meraki dashboard learns the client again (you cannot manually create the client by MAC as it still associates the hidden forgotten one in preference) and then you can set a policy.

Thygesen · ‎Apr 1 2020

I'm following closely! We see these gaps also (mainly reported because video streaming is popular at the moment) but Wifi coverage is very flexible at this customer, so no business affected .. Will love to hear what engineering has to say (and how they will discover what's wrong) ..

cmr · ‎Mar 25 2020

If you have the switches split to both be external and internal then you have two issues Client mapping and topology etc. will get confused, leading to data that doesn't make sense From a security point of view, you are creating a serious risk that doesn't need to be there, I personally wouldn't want to create that risk just to save the cost of a couple of L2 switches.

cmr · ‎Mar 25 2020

@ArneBieractually our marketing team begged us to install Chrome because Facebook doesn't work properly in Internet Explorer.... 😛

About cmr

cmr

Community Record

Badges