Hell yeah, that's great news! 🐵 ... View more

How should integration look like?   I've never done this and don't know how Wildfire handles things, but the only way for outgoing calls on Meraki side would be Webhooks.   The other option is having Wildfire pull stuff via Meraki API, but that'd be inbound. ... View more

Well, one could argue that what's coming up is not a "real" Cisco Live 😉 ... View more

^Welcome to the community Amit! ... View more

Gotta love that robot! 😍 ... View more

@NolanHerring: makes sense. Seems like I was stuck with my current setup where I have a „specific MAC to PSK“-binding. If you take out the MAC address out of that equation, it‘s getting logical. Thanks for the heads up!   @thomasthomsen: Oh shoot, yes. You reminded me about that discussion in an ISE call. Kudos to you too! ... View more

Two things I noted after upgrading:   WPA3 is not showing up on my iPSK enabled SSID iPSK without RADIUS could be really nice, but there‘s one thing completely missing (from my point of view): something like a „catch all“ PSK. Using FreeRADIUS, you could have a PSK for every device not having a special treatment. Especially regarding the 50 PSK limit per SSID, this seems like an even better idea. Perhaps I‘m blind but I haven‘t found something like this (yet?)). ... View more

Yeah, Meraki MXs‘ strength is definitely not useful logging. I‘m currently setting up Splunk as log solution and building Dashboards etc. is definitely harder than with e.g. ASA or Firepower.   On the other hand: if you‘re looking for something you possibly have missed, you‘d probably better be off with some kind of network anomaly detection like Stealthwatch. I‘ve seen too many companies running state of the art firewalls, IPS, SIEM etc., but even with a few days of Stealthwatch PoC, they‘ve seen „things“ they‘d never had expected. Especially when talking about those log volumes you‘re mentioning, it‘s completely impossible to not miss something as a human being. ... View more

Storming that beach right now 😉   Thanks for the heads up!   P.S.: What a pity: “Note: Currently, the NBAR integration on MR access points is not supported in Combined networks, nor is it supported in wireless-only networks using a mix of NBAR-compatible and non-NBAR-compatible MR devices. Additionally, networks bound to templates of any network type are not supported at the moment.“ 😕 ... View more

Ciao Fabrizio! I‘m pretty sure you‘ll share the fun about networking and Meraki (especially) with us 🙂 ... View more

Educated guess: Meraki doesn't trust Sectico certs / at least it seems that they don't have its Pubkey.   Your best option would be calling support. ... View more

Hi Rishabh! Welcome to the community. 🙂   If you don‘t find enough information about Meraki solutions in here, you‘ll have a very hard time finding them somewhere else 😎 ... View more

Having access to the management port doesn't give you any possibility to fully configure the device. Meraki devices are cloud managed, so unless you have administrative access to the (cloud-based) Dashboard, you're out of luck. ... View more

Who ever said you need a „domain“ to leverage 802.1x? Of course having a directory / central configuration für your endpoints helps a lot, but it can be done without it. It only takes more effort, but more effort doesn‘t means „not applicable“.   Also I‘m not getting the point about “RADIUS servers pose a point of failure in our network“. The same thing goes for DHCP, DNS, Domain Controllers, whatever kind of server you‘re ever referring to. Implement them as failsafe as possible and you‘ll sleep a little better. 😉 The only thing missing from Meraki switches is the ability to implement a Critical-Fail VLAN as seen on Cisco Enterprise switches. This would make for a more „failsafe“ option for this use case.   I have implemented network access control for years now from small shops to multi-national companies. I‘m not saying it‘s always easy, I‘m not saying there never have been failures but never ever has a complete network been shut down after implementing access control.   My point still is: there‘s no use in controlling how many devices are connecting as long as you‘re not able to control if these are the allowed to access your network. ... View more

Well, possibly I‘m not able to see to value to this, but until now, I never understood any of use case brought up for this. 🤔   Why care how many devices are connected to a switch port? If you really want to control who‘s able to access your network: implement proper 802.1x  ... View more

Waiting for this feature to implement a false sense of security? C‘mon guys, implementing security via MAC addresses is hardly security at all. Why should Meraki implement something that has been a bad idea when it was done ages ago because of any other ways to do it?! ... View more

Everything possible with Meraki MX regarding NAT is listed here: https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/NAT_and_Port_Forwarding/Port_Forwarding_and_NAT_Rules_on_the_MX   Guess you're out of luck here. ... View more

Looking good on MR45 😎 ... View more

If any chance, API would be the answer. From my point of view, one would have to ask for several API endpoints as there is no single pane of glass for (single) device configuration. ... View more

Welcome to the community. Aaaaaand...   ... View more

Congrats everybody! Keep it goin'!   Woohoo, I never thought that I'd make it to that list! 😎 ... View more

IFTTT doesn't "understand" the format of the Webhooks response. You'd need some kind of middleware that will translate the message to the corresponding format.   On the other hand, you could simply use Zapier which works out of the box. 😉 ... View more

Congrats @cwf! Sounds like you‘ve seen a lot of interesting stuff!   Btw. I also remember Sun and Slowlaris. I once had a SparcStation 5 running as my home firewall (using OpenBSD at that time though) 😎 ... View more