Meraki

CptnCrnch · ‎Aug 5 2019

If you think about how management works for Meraki: does this really make sense? We worked with dedicated management interfaces for ages, with an exclusive set of internal machines that were able to reach our devices. “Nowadays“ with Meraki, management is completely performed from the outside, from the cloud even. That‘s what is completely different than the way things were handled before. Therefore (in my opinion) something like dedicated management interfaces don‘t make sense in this scenario.

CptnCrnch · ‎Aug 1 2019

Can‘t believe I even made it to Tier 3, let alone winning something! 🤪 Thanks so much and congrats to everyone else who participated!

CptnCrnch · ‎Aug 1 2019

What exactly do you mean by „unreachable“? For the dashboard? For you to ping?

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 31 2019

I never had luck with such things but I have to admit I‘m eagerly waiting for the results. 😇

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 31 2019

From my understanding, you'll have to bring your own license (or have one spare left)

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Seconded, at lest that‘s what I realized today: you‘re. It able to change that. Thought this was because I‘m running beta code.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Why even bother with log files when you can have alerting? 🙂 https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Monitoring_and_Reporting/Configuring_Network_Alerts_in_Dashboard

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Not even when scrolling down to the bottom? Then there should be a "Make a wish"-button. At least, it's there for me, but perhaps I've not used all of my three wishes for today. 😉

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Sorry to be answering this by myself, but perhaps this will help somebody someday: Actually, it is working as expected right now! Seems like the cellular connection was kinda flaky with my first tests. I simply disabled No-NAT for WAN2, made sure I had a stable LTE signal and everything worked flawlessly. Strangely enough, it doesn't seem to work when WAN1 is set to No-NAT. I know you guys aren't too happy with the way No-NAT is implemented currently but this could be something to remember when developing this further. Thanks a million @Raj66 for the hint!

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

I was able to do some more testing now with only WAN1 being No-NAT enabled (OS is 15.15): 1) The MX itself was failing over to cellular as expected. I could see the mobile providers' IP on the dashboard 2) On the local MX status page, the connection was also showing up as "Connected", the speed test had some good results 3) Strangely enough, the dashboard didn't provide any information about the cellular connection at that moment 4) No internal client was able to access the internet though I guess it's really narrowing down to the No-NAT feature.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Auto-VPN is Merakis "propriatery" VPN solution for Hub-and-Spoke and / or Mesh VPN networks: https://meraki.cisco.com/technologies/auto-vpn. It is in fact a "standard" Site-to-Site VPN solution but much easiert to manage as almost everything (up to configuration parameters) is provided though the Cloud dashboard. Of course you can do things like Split- or Full Tunneling, but it doesn't sound like it's the thing you're searching for. From my point of view, there's no equivalent to VTIs on Cisco routers or ASAs in the Meraki world.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

If you're referring to SD-WAN technologies: it defintely does, even more. PLease find more information here: https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Cisco_Meraki_Best_Practice_Design/Best_Practice_Design_-_MX_Security_and_SD-WAN/Meraki_SD-WAN#SD-WAN_Technologies Apart from (Meraki-"internal") Auto-VPN I'm not aware of something like Route-based VPN.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 30 2019

Hi @Raj66 , thanks for stepping in, highly appreciated! Sorry it took a little to test again, it's not that easy to find a timeslot for a possible downtime. Just as you proposed, No-NAT was only enabled for the primary uplink and the MX was forced to switch to cellular. This time, I had a backup connection (on my laptop) to see what's going on in the dashboard. Unfortunately, it looked like cellular wasn't taking over this time at all so the connection was lost completely. Guess I'll have to step back and troubleshoot the cellular connection first.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

Have you also made that wish in your Dashboard? If not, you should possibly go for it too. 🙂

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

You really think Firepower will be more silent? It's rated as "31.7 dBA @ 25C, 56.8 dBA at highest system performance" (https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/collateral/security/firepower-1000-series/datasheet-c78-742469.html). Unfortunately, Meraki doesn't include noise in their datasheet but as @Nash said: as long as you're going 19", it's going to make some noise. It really depends in temperature levels then...

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

Just wondering: which competitor would build a device that would suffice your actual requirements and not include fans / make some noise?

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

Is your customer sitting right next to the device? From my point of view, MX100 is a device that will be installed in a 19" rack in a dedicated server room / data center. Of course it has got fans that are producing noise but as @PhilipDAth said: it will simply blend in to the sound of the other devices located there. Have you checked if "lower end" device without fans (linke MX67/68) would suffice?

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

Cloud license will enable uploading footage to the cloud, but this has nothing to do with encrypted content on the camera itself: https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Cisco_Meraki_Best_Practice_Design/Best_Practice_Design_-_MV_Cameras/Meraki_MV_Cameras_-_Introduction_and_Features#Secured_Access_and_Encryption Coming back (more precisely) to the question: without cloud license, the footage can't be accessed by the thief but can't actually be viewed. 🙂

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 29 2019

From my understanding, everything on the camera is encrypted so should be pretty useless to the thief.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 28 2019

Did you succeed finally? I had a similar experience today (same provider). LTE came up only after powering off the MX completely and is running fine since then.

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 28 2019

Gentlemen, I just did some testing with an MX67C and its integrated LTE modem. The modem itself including failover to LTE is working as expected, until I disable NAT on both uplinks (which is what is needed in this scenario). It looks like there‘s some kind of connection between both, unfortunately I‘m unable to troubleshoot currently because of the „missing“ uplink. Therefore: has somebody else tried to use LTE failover combined with No-NAT? Or is there some kind of secret switch that support can enable that excempts LTE from No-NAT? Or am I completely wrong with this assumption? Any hint is highly appreciated!

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 25 2019

Great to see phantastic work as by @AjitKumar will get honored in here. Every single thing I read from him has been so professional and helpful!

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 25 2019

Whatever you do: please keep in mind that Group Policies are not stateful. At least I had to learn the hard way that return traffic won‘t get through...

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 24 2019

Let me get this straight: you‘re asking for help to configure a Fortinet VPN in a Meraki forum? 🤭

CptnCrnch · ‎Jul 23 2019

Please don‘t hold your breath until that happens 😇

About CptnCrnch

CptnCrnch

Chris

Community Record

Badges