Meraki

KarstenI · ‎Mar 29 2023

No, but for everything that you want to do, there are better ways to achieve it.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 29 2023

Where? Yes! No!

KarstenI · ‎Mar 29 2023

From where do you have the information of 1RU? And there are significant differences between LP and FP: The FP is not only larger, it also has an internal power supply while the LP has an external power supply.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

That's a very nice addition!

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

If you plan to enable Advanced Security function you need at least the MX95 to avoid any bottleneck: https://meraki.cisco.com/product-collateral/mx-family-datasheet/?file But do you really need this full throughput? I have a couple of MX68, MX75 and MX84 on ISP links with 1Gig, Typically the users don't need the full 1Gig.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

Of course you may know this. The part number is in the link and they even have published the price on their website.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

I am also running MX84s, 64s, 67s and luckily after these steps it went to normal. But likely my problem was something else than yours although the symptoms were the same..

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

Yes:

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

I had this problem on many networks after updates from 16 to 17 or 16 to 18. The solution was to remove all content and thread categories, apply, wait, and then reconfigure the needed categories.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 28 2023

Where do you see that stated? It has an integrated mount to fix it to a wall, but no rack-mount kit. Also the MX75 (and lower models) are desktop devices. MX85 and higher are rack-devices.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 27 2023

These are desktop switches. But there is at least one third-party solution: https://www.rackmount.it/products/regulars/cisrack/rm-ci-t7.html

KarstenI · ‎Mar 27 2023

The MR36 uses 802.3af, which means the two switches would be fine. But for ease of operation I would use 2*MS120-8FP. That makes the all-in-all management easier.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 26 2023

I think this would be too generic.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 26 2023

This is pretty much what I do with most customers. With only a few switches in the access, the core is typically a stacked MS355.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 26 2023

Just tested on my CW9166: Configured a new Profile with only UNII1 selected for AutoRF. Applied the profile, updated and waited. After some time both the radio settings and the utilisation showed CH48 which was also the channel WiFi Explorer shows. Set the channel manually to 140 on the AP. Wifi Explorer shows the change, Channel utilisation shows the new channel, Radio settings still show 48, but changed to 140 after a minute or so. This is pretty much what I expected. The Firmware is 29.5.1.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 25 2023

Oh, interesting, “D” for internal directional antennas? But CM … No idea!

KarstenI · ‎Mar 25 2023

I assume his desire to set the channels is the result of either a WLAN-design/site-survey or a dedicated optimization. For the RF-profile: The AP needs a profile, that’s the reason you can’t remove it. But you can apply the default profile to set it back to default.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 23 2023

Only Meraki knows the Meraki Future. And don't forget that there is a "Give your Feedback" button on the bottom right of the Dashboard.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 19 2023

For all of these very special VPN requirements, I would always add an additional ASA or FTD to the network. Although AutoVPN is great, all the other VPN features are quite limited on the MX.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 17 2023

Congratulation to the winners, I am a little bit envious ... 😀

KarstenI · ‎Mar 16 2023

No, the setting of the root bridge only makes it deterministic. But the loop is there regardless of the root-settings. STP will avoid the problems that occur through the loop.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 16 2023

Still the recommended design ... 😉 And because @PhilipDAth will also recommend a different approach, in this blog post both options are outlined: https://cyber-fi.net/index.php/2022/03/13/how-to-connect-the-meraki-mx-to-ms-switches/ IMHO both are ok as long as the decision can be justified.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 16 2023

This is a valid design. But if you have at least /29 networks from the ISPs, you can easily connect both MXes to both ISPs. And the switch-ports that connect the MXes are not allowed to have any STP-Guard as you rely on STP to block two of the ports.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 16 2023

Both devices are meant to be mounted in a 19" rack.

KarstenI · ‎Mar 16 2023

The change of the VLAN for the SSID will not be the problem. But the misbehaving clients will be. Some might realise that the network changed, some might do a new DHCP when the wireless connection is killed and re associated and some will likely stick with the old IP until reboot. Especially IoT devices are very often the ones that behave the worst.

About KarstenI

KarstenI

Karsten Iwen

Community Record

Badges