Yippie, yippie, yeah! ... And @Brash: No, only one is "as always", the rest has a little variability. 😉 ... View more

And it looks exactly like the Catalyst 9136, I hope it doesn't get the same disaster as with the MS390. ... View more

Oh, there is one aspect that can make the MR57 about twice as fast as the MRx6: It contains a dual-band radio for 5 and 6 GHz. Without the clients, we can have an additional 5 GHz radio and later switch that radio to 6GHz when the compatible clients show up. ... View more

That is very hard to tell. One Customers of your size with a Cloud-only approach has a 50/50 Backup link. When the primary 200/200 fails, this link is completely saturated and the users are limited in their work-performance. But at least they still can work. ... View more

Today I would expect the device to be equally fast for the users like a MR46 or MR56. But in the future when more clients a capable of 6GHz, there will be an increased throughput because more often we will be able to use 80 MHz channels or even 160 MHz where now are typically 40MHz or even 20 MHz is in use. Ok, 160 MHz channels will probably not that useful  in Germany where I am because we only have half the frequency to use compared to US.   In the past, the two LAN-ports could be bonded together with LACP. I would expect that this device also can do this, the Datasheet will tell us. ... View more

As @AjitKumar already mentioned, this setup is fine. Regarding the choice of Fiber or Copper, I would use what the ISP delivers natively. If the ISP gibes you a finer connection, use it. For Copper you would need an additional media converter. If the ISP equipment lets you choose Fiber or copper, I would probably choose copper as that can not be damaged that easily (this is only my experience, others will have a different opinion on this). One more thing to consider is the Backup link. If the primary ISP fails, the 5 MBit uplink speed of ISP2 will just not work for 60 users in a SaaS environment. ... View more

I used them both in UK and Germany. ... View more

And again a different opinion: There is no build in backup with the Meraki dashboard. If it doesn't help against the malicious Admin that deleted a network or even worse, the organisation, then it should not be named "backup". ... View more

The most important aspect of this design is that your BPDUs can flow freely through the MX. The easiest way to achieve this is to leave the default VLAN 1 as native VLAN in place. ... View more

As there can only be one active MX in one Dashboard-Network, you have to create a second network and put the second MX in there. Only the dashboard networks will be separated, the actual MXes will share one network. The L3-Switch between your internal VLANs and the MX needs to distribute the traffic between both gateways. ... View more

I only know "PCAP or it didn't happen" ... 🙂 ... View more

Congratulations to all of us. And welcome Brash! ... View more

Wohoo, again ... 🙂 Congratulation to all of you! ... View more

Same here as pointed out by @cmr. Very strange, sometimes I am a little bit worried not to have a complete organization-backup ...   ... View more

Thanks, I'll directly test this! ... View more

The C3560CX-8XPD had been my first choice in the past. Now I would go with the CBS350-12NP-4X. With 4*SFP+ you can also connect the MX WAN-ports with DAC-cables instead of SFP+. And not using a Meraki Switch for the WAN switch removes the hassle with cloud-connectivity from the WAN-side to the internet. ... View more

At least the "Core"-approach will work straight forward as it is a completely common way todo it. The way with multiple access-layers to the MX is possible also with 3+ switches, but you have to take care not to mess up the different native VLANs to the different access-layers to "repair" the STP-setup.  ... View more

Are you referring to "only" having a 1Gig uplink to your switch? You miss nothing as you will likely never hit that throughput. ... View more

But nothing that could not be managed with proper switch configuration. And a “Core” would also be connected redundantly and we have the same situation. ... View more

There will be no practical difference in throughput if you have an additional Core-Switch or not. But it really seems that it is not needed here for functionality. The only problem could be connectivity of the firewall to the switches. With three floors you need a lot of SFP-ports on the firewall to directly connect the access-switches. Or do you have copper from the firewall placement to the access-switches?   Firewall-redundancy is definitely more important, if you use Meraki MX, you only need an additional appliance and no additional license. That comes pretty cheap. ... View more