@RubenG Thanks for sharing that.  I have shared this thread and also a similar response I got from support with a team at RingCentral.  My reply indicated they felt this was an iOS issue for Apple to fix, but I told RingCentral I am not sure I agree since I use other VOIP apps like Dialpad on my iPhone and it does not have the problem.     ... View more

Well, I will be following to see if you find out 😉   I suppose I would start with my distributor to see what they know and then maybe a Meraki rep who can find out. Hopefully someone here has sold it and can fill us in.   Good luck. ... View more

And as I understand Meraki Now is simply paying for the right to get faster hardware replacements (where available).  It looks like the best tier is 24X7X2OS   *Edited fastest onsite service. ... View more

Good question.  I have not sold any yet, but I know it is in regular CCW and priced as a percentage of the total hardware price.  Here is a doc about it: https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_now_solution_guide.pdf     ... View more

You are correct that you should not tie network cable to power cable or run in parallel.   A few inches apart from 120v wiring should be fine in my experience.  Occasionally crossing a line should be fine too.  I would just keep them as far away as you reasonably can.  Shielded CAT6 is made to combat interference so you might consider that if you haven't already purchased your cable and feel you might have a lot electrical interference to deal with.  Good luck. ... View more

"Kneel before Zod" lol!   That is all correct.  I forgot to reply earlier that the ISR is perfectly good way to work around getting your /26 more properly usable if your ISP won't change.  I have been battling and escalating with Comcast for nearly a month already on this same topic.  They just won't change it.  They will put in their own router (and charge) or we can do like you are planning.. ... View more

I've had Comcast deliver this way.  It will just work and you can assign 1:1 NAT, etc. from you /26 as normal on your MX.   Where you could have a problem is if you plan to do warm spare and need more public IP addresses in a subnet on your WAN port. ... View more

I like @NolanHerring 's theory better than my cable issue idea now 😉   Let us know what you discover.  I am curious.   Good luck. ... View more

There is a cable test function you can run on your MS switch.  I would try that for a few of these ports to see what result you get.   It is possible you have some faulty units.  Since they have never worked the next steps would be some basic troubleshooting like moving them to known working port and trying a factory default.  It would be a bit unusual to have that many faulty, but support should replace them quickly if you can demonstrate they do not work.   The quickest test I can think of would be to swap a working MR with one of these in repeater mode and see if the trouble follows the MR or the cable and switch port.       ... View more

I would suspect a cable issue off the top of my head.   Can you give a little more background?  Do you know when they last worked as gateways if known?   Have you done any troubleshooting so far?  I would look at the switch ports those MR's are connected to and if available do a cable test and check statistics and settings.   Are all MR's POE or may they have external power supply? ... View more

@Uberseehandel wrote: Thanks for pointing out the link was borked.   Any reasonable person might assume the Meraki would sponsor its own videos to advertise products. Or is the marketing function being subsumed into Cisco?  I see what you are getting at.  I know Meraki has its own marketing department, but also remember Cisco has acquired them several years ago now and obviously has a huge marketing department overall.  Meraki has a unique independence as far as Cisco acquisitions go, but it would not surprise me to someday see the Meraki name go away and just be a 'regular' part of the Cisco product line.   Not exactly the same, but there was "Linksys by Cisco" for a time after that acquisition and now that is just Cisco SG series small business switches. ... View more

I'm not really sure what you are implying.  It didn't sound like LTT needed much persuasion at all..   FYI your link is broken (some extra muck at the end).  I watched the video and heard and saw Meraki mentioned.  They showed a product web page even.       ... View more

@BS Had you seen this in the Meraki Marketplace? https://apps.meraki.io/details/aerwave/ ... View more

I had support make a back end change to two of my MR networks.  It was to disable 802.11k on a per MR and per SSID basis as I understand.  So far I have not been able to reproduce the lost audio issue on v26.2   This is promising though. ... View more

Just curious if the trouble is with wired or wireless connection or both?  I am troubleshooting a problem with RingCentral on iPhone and have discovered an issue with MR v26.  I am not sure if it could also be with MXW as well. ... View more

I have only toyed with the idea myself, but I did see some third party monitoring solutions via meraki.io You might take a look over there.  Maybe something from these guys? https://www.v-app.io   Good luck. ... View more

@SoCalRacer  I have never had a problem accessing service.ringcentral.com behind Meraki. Maybe a contend filter is blocking?  What error do you see?   As for the apps, the “new” one is a result of RingCentral purchasing Glip. They have been adding features to it and it seems the intention is to make it a unified app similar to Teams or Slack, etc. The original phone app is still being maintained and updated, but I feel like it will be abandoned at some point and everyone forced to the Glip based app when it is mature enough.    Personally, I like the Glip app and use it over the phone app.    I am am still working with Meraki support in the v26 issue.  It is really frustrating and hard to make progress. One of those issues that only seems to happen with two vendors and it is not clear who is really at fault and needs to fix it. I worked extensively with RC already and I am leaning towards Meraki needing to fix something  it needs to be clearly identified as a problem to them first though.  ... View more

@BWestlake wrote: /29 is 8 IPs which gives you 6 usable?   1 - GW 2 - MX100  (Primary) 3 - MX100 (Spare) 4 - Virtual IP 5 - 1:1 / 1:Many NAT 6 - 1:1 / 1:Many NAT 7 - MX67 8 - Broadcast Duh, yeah you are right (almost). 1 and 8 are not usable.  They are network and broadcast.  The other 6 are usable and one is the gateway leaving you with 5 to use for whatever you want. ... View more

And @jdsilva is also correct you do not have enough IP's. I am fighting with Comcast now that has assigned my customer a /30 and also a /28 that are contiguous in a /27, but they refuse to change their WAN handoff from a /30 and is preventing me from setting up a warm spare with VIP.. ... View more

I am working on the same setup right now and support advised me to make sure the MS120 you are using as a "breakout" switch between the provider side and the MX is assigned an internal IP statically to ensure it does NOT get a public IP.  You don't really want or need your MS120 having a public IP for any reason. ... View more

@PhilipDAth wrote: No I don't know the performance impact.  I'm trying to get myself onto the beta program.  Being a close beta I'm not sure, but I asked if I could talk about this in public and was told yes and the documentation is publically posted.     I'm generally not a fan of SSL inspection - because it is a lot of work to deploy and breaks things.   You need to load a certificate onto the MX (or any device that does TLS inspection), and then load that certificate as a trusted root certificate onto every device sending traffic via that MX.  For some mobile devices that is a real pig of a job. You end up creating more VLANs, so you can inspect some types of devices and avoid others because they are too much work - or you create huge bypass/whitelist rules.   Then you get sites (like www.google.com) that specifically check that the certificate returned is Google's, and will report a security problem.  So you end up telling the browser to ignore this, and the user has worse protection when they are out of your office, or you start whitelisting things all over the place.   Then you get issues with new versions of server software offering newer encryption and TLS versions faster than the SSL inspection engine is updated, breaking things.  For example, this TLS inspection feature only supports TLSv1.2.  So if you went to a web site that only offered TLSv1.3 (not likely at this stage) it would break.     With Cisco Firepower you can say only TLS inspect sites with a "rank" below a certain value.  Then it ignores high ranking sites like Google, Office 365, etc - and only pays attention to low ranked sites (far more likely to be used for malware).  This also relieves a lot of load off the device, as the bulk of your traffic tends to be to high ranking sites (the very defination of high rank). That's a good breakdown, @PhilipDAth As a reseller, I just look forward to it so it checks the box as something competitors currently do, but Meraki does not.. ... View more

Sounds like browser issue maybe?  I seem to recall having a similar issue before where static IP info I put in and saved didn't take and I had go apply it again. ... View more

I'll make a wild guess-  Maybe Optimum uses PPPoE and they Linksys has that configured?   Have you tried just connecting a laptop to the Optimum circuit to see if it provides you an IP or not?       ... View more

I recreated this issue again and sent Meraki support a PCAP from the LAN side of my MX that captures the issue.  it was a short loss of audio from server toward client and the RC app showed an error and also played the progress tone while re-establishing connection.  It happened just after 12 minutes into a call. I also sent them the server side RingCentral QOS report screenshot and details.     ... View more

Good point, that is possible.  I can try it here to with MX65 currently on 13.  Thanks and let us know. ... View more