With a 35 acre caravan park, I would not use AP-style WiFi for the backhaul, rather use a fixed Point-to-Point  or Point-to-Multipoint architecture, analogous to what the WISP operators use. Overall this would be more efficient from both cost and operational viewpoints. Point to point distances can be greater than with AP based systems.   ... View more

How many phones do you have that are not USB-C? Apple seems happy with USB-C.   The only kit I have that is less than USB 2.x is Meraki. I doubt it is any different in many other places. ... View more

(disabled)   definitely not part of the name   From the other end of the S2S link   ... View more

Is this not what you are looking for?   ... View more

I use a Z3C on the road, mostly with only the LTE active. ... View more

ONT - Optical network terminator. Used to provide internet access to local networks. If there is FTTP, an ONT or equivalent is usually present. Many ISPs provide a choice of options, SFP or RJ45. ... View more

Does the ISP termination device have a fiber connection option, or will the ISP supply a "normal" ONT if requested? ... View more

For home deployment there are a couple of gotchas   IPv6, being deployed domestically by increasing numbers of ISP, is not ready for the big time as the MX does not really handle it. Multicast TV - again increasing numbers of ISPs are using multicast technology to distribute premium subscription-based content. The MX absolutely does not have the option of having an IGMP-proxy enabled. (it isn't difficult it is part of Debian releases). Not coincidentally, these shortcomings are less pressing in US/NA than the rest of the world. I know several really large all service Telcos that have substantial managed services businesses. They would use Meraki stacks, if the MX was more closely aligned with current requirements.   ... View more

Try turning the space into an under score _  ... View more

@PhilipDAth wrote: Does the SSID contain any special characters such as spaces, percent symbols, etc?   Some dumb clients don't have SSIDs with more than about 15 characters very well. Emojis, diacriticals, non-roman lettering, all cause problems. When naming SSIDs, avoid the urge to make them cute. ... View more

I have a network that is effectively layered, like an onion skin with multiple security appliances. The dashboard for the system the MX uplinks to shows the MX as having 2 MAC.   As I see it there is a MAC for the device and one for each MX port.     ... View more

@CKYI wrote: May we get the test items for the certification of Carriers or ISP/MSP ? I'd like to check the test items for the preparation. Ask the MNOs. ... View more

@BlakeRichardson wrote: The MX67C means that for countries other than the US and Canada its not guess work to find out if your USB modem will work or not.    Yes there is the documentatoin page that lists the support models but most of those are not available outside of said country.  Actually, when I discussed this with Meraki folk, it became clear that nobody is properly tasked with helping MNO's validate that Meraki equipment operates within specifications on their networks.   Uncertainty as to the compatibility of Meraki hardware with MNOs is a hindrance. There is nothing complicated, we are dealing with international recognised standards and protocols. Meraki buys in LTE technology from established companies.   Meraki would help itself if the USB ports were USB-C 3.1. This is an oversight. Is there a demand? All our other equipment has USB "Superspeed" compliant USB ports, Meraki needs to address this oversight, it isn't rocket science.   ... View more

@PhilipDAth wrote:  . . . rebooting the MX67C does not reboot the cellular model built into it . . .  Conveniently, I found on the Z3C that disabling/enabling the LTE modem from the dashboard, effectively recycled it. If a USB modem is involved, I think I could explain to somebody how to remove and reinsert it. But not too enthusiastically. ... View more

@MarcP wrote: "ignore the MDM network"      I hate this python stuff 😄 Untill someday I´ll learn it, then for sure I´ll love it 😛 Fortunately, one can do great stuff with Node.js and NodeRed - plenty of stuff on the Cisco DevNet site. Python is the work of the devil, it encourages errors. ... View more

The listing only shows the "normal" VLANs, as you have observed, it does not contain the VPN VLANs and the LANs, which are required to be able to see at a glance what IP address ranges are available for sub-netting.   Have you tried using XlsxWriter to create Excel files using python? I have no idea how good it is. ... View more

I find the listing of VLANs on the dashboard to be "fine as far as it goes".   When checking the overall VLAN schema, it would be preferable if VPN VLANs were include from the point of view of completeness. Some of the VLANs have a /28 address as opposed to /24, it would be nice to see if the IP addresses beyond the /28 network range are available for VLAN allocation.   The above script produces a much more useful listing.. ... View more

Michel   Thanks very much for that. What I have done already, looks like what you have set up. However, I need to check that the port forwarding rule I set up, actually does what I intended it to do. As configuring firewall features on the non-Meraki Security Appliance are unnecessarily complicated, it is easy to get it wrong.   Thanks so much, I shall work on it in the morning.   Cheers Robin ... View more

Hi Michel   I have a port forwarding rule set to pass UDP ports 500 and 4500 through the firewall when being sent to 192.168.22.14, which is the MX WAN IP DHCP address. I can ping 192.168.22.14 however. This IP address does not change.   Now, the connection attempt fails quite quickly, but I don't see any meaningful error logging on any machine.   Thanks again   Robin ... View more

Servus @MichelRueger    I also have an MX behind a third party security appliance (aka Kharon).   I am uncertain as to which IP address to use in the port forwarding rule on Kharon.   The MX uplinks to Kharon on a LAN - 192.168.22.0/28 and receives an IP address from the DHCP server on that link.   Both the MX and Kharon have NAT active, for reasons of functionality and security. It does not have any impact upon the sipgate phone system.   Any guidance would be greatly appreciated     ... View more

I like to keep thing really simple - keep the corporate stuff apart from the "home network". Having an installed home router ahead of the Z3, it is a no brainer to attach home network devices to the "home router" and reserve the Z3 for corporate use. If you have a laptop that you use personally as well as for corporate matters, it is simple enough to switch between WIFi networks. If printers are shared between corporate and home, then with any luck the printers in question have email functionality available, so you just email what is to be printed to the printer.   It is like the separation of church and state. ... View more

Plug the printers into the "home router", not the Z3, if you don't want the boss seeing your "holiday snaps". ... View more

I have been reluctant to jump on the IPv6 bandwagon because of the need for Toredo tunnelling and for dual stacks, in most environments. In some implementations I have seen, dual stacking disables hardware offloading, which can have a big impact upon throughput.   So I would ask that a pure IPv6 implementation be introduced sooner rather than later. At that point, I'll switch over. All the AV kit, Playout devices, Smart TVs, workstations etc do IPv6 already, only the network kit doesn't, ... View more

I think most of us are planning on being allocated a /48 or /56 address or better, rather than a /64. ... View more