Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About RumorConsumer
RumorConsumer
Head in the Cloud
Member since Jul 7, 2019
Apr 19 2024
Community Record
483
Posts
146
Kudos
3
Solutions
Badges
Jun 6 2021
6:37 PM
That’s helpful. So to your reading it’s basically the same power in both directions - above and in front?
... View more
Jun 6 2021
5:22 PM
Hello - I’m trying to make sense of the radiation pattern on the MR52. https://meraki.cisco.com/product-collateral/mr52-datasheet/?file if you scroll all the way to the bottom in the 5ghz section you’ll see the figure in the bottom left shows a pattern with a measurement of 5 as the edge of the signal coming off the top of the unit. The second middle one is front to back and only goes to 0. Does this mean that if the MR52 were suspended in space I would get a further reaching signal if I were directly above it versus directly in front of its broad side?
... View more
May 23 2021
10:01 PM
Its just wood. I will keep an eye on it. Thanks for all your help as always.
... View more
May 19 2021
9:42 PM
I realized the best antenna would probably be a patch, but would it negatively affect the reception or the AP's ability to project out in front of it if it were mounted to a wall with 2 sets of omni's on it? Its a wood structure. Im just seeing lower radio power (17db) on 5ghz than Id expect given the distance of clients.
... View more
May 12 2021
9:25 AM
@KarstenI @Bruce Haha thank you both. This is great. My bandwidth is rarely saturated (250x250 fiber) so Im going to not worry about it. Sounds like thats the suggested path at least for now.
... View more
May 11 2021
10:33 PM
@Bruce What if I was running a retreat center with 30 regular residents who all had computers and iPhones and were all in some version of telecommunication all day long?
... View more
May 11 2021
4:29 PM
@Bruce Gotcha - so dont worry about it is one of the best answers I could hope for.
... View more
May 11 2021
4:08 PM
Thanks @KarstenI So then being totally new to this protocol and particular standard system, would you say that I need to enable this feature manually as you can see in the screenshot? Does it somehow receive instructions from my router when I turn on DSCP?
... View more
May 11 2021
2:25 PM
I've been reading a bit about QoS management and am trying to suss out a few questions. https://documentation.meraki.com/MS/Other_Topics/QoS_(Quality_of_Service) One is that it seems like there are a few different ways to deliver QoS. Right now I have my MX68 set to doing the standard set QoS rules that prioritizes realtime audio and video chat. Meraki seems to prefer this DSCP technology and also says they use DiffServ. So the way I understand it is that the MX puts DSCP info in the packet headers, and then its up to the switches to accurately carry out those wishes, basically? I use Netgear switches on my property and looking in the config I see this option that I had never thought to look at let alone change. I figured it was all happening in the MX. Should I make adaptations here in my switches?
... View more
May 11 2021
2:20 PM
@BlakeRichardson can you be more specific about "this"? To what exactly are you referring?
... View more
May 11 2021
11:22 AM
@rhbirkelund https://www.netgear.com/business/wired/switches/unmanaged/gs108pp/
... View more
May 11 2021
10:55 AM
@rhbirkelund >>>There's a good chance that the unmanaged switch doesn't understand 802.1q trunking. That being said, if you on the managed switch have a port where vlan 1 is native (untagged) and tagging vlan 4, connect the unmanaged switch to said port, all traffic will ingress on the untagged vlan 1 on the managed switch, because the unmanaged switch has no concept of vlans. Now if the managed switch port is in Access mode on vlan 4, and the unmanaged switch is connected to this port, all traffic on the unmanaged switch will ingress on vlan 4 of the managed. I hope that made sense. -- Yes it makes sense. But check me on this - right now I have just such a situation. I have an unmanaged switch on a port off a managed switch that is default VLAN of 1 and tagged VLAN of 4. Every port aside from the one being connected to the managed switch connects to a MR that serves an SSID with a VLAN Tag of 4. In dashboard, the proper VLAN assignments are occurring - MRs are on VLAN 1 which is expected, and the MRs are properly distributing VLAN 4 to clients on said SSID. So on the unmanaged switch it seems like the traffic is able to traverse, but my guess is there is something undesirable happening even though the results seem good.
... View more
May 11 2021
10:16 AM
Ok so I asked this with the wrong language yesterday and didnt quite get the questions answered that I needed. I am re-asking here in a new thread with the correct language that I think will help. Lets say my network has a segment that looks like MX-->Managed switch --> Unmanaged switch (uplinked to the managed switch on one of it's access ports providing the same vlan (4) to all its clients) Lets say that the default VLAN is 1 and there is one tagged VLAN at #4. I may use an unmanaged switch in this way in one of two situations 1. Where I need to quickly get some wired clients into a lab and don't have a spare managed switch in which case, like I said above, I set the access port its hung off of to VLAN 4 and then everything wired thereafter is on VLAN 4 or 2. Where I will only be connecting MR's to it and so dont have any need for access ports on the switch itself as the MRs will handle the VLAN tagging to clients. What are the negative side effects here? I had read that QOS will not work correctly, and also there may be some extra load on the MX and possibly some extra latency but not much. Do you need to be using Meraki switches for them to inherit QOS preferences properly or is there some kind of language that managed switches all can speak to properly implement the settings on the MX? I do not care so much about inter-VLAN communication. Im most interested in optimizing traffic on a single VLAN (4 - my client VLAN). Thanks!
... View more
May 10 2021
10:37 PM
@PhilipDAth sorry for screwing up the nomenclature. I appreciate your time always. And @Inderdeep and @Bruce So then we are agreed managed switches whenever possible as opposed to unmanaged. Imagine, if you would, my same question, but instead instead of L3 and L2, I meant an "L2+" managed v standard unmanaged gigabit switch.
... View more
May 10 2021
10:28 PM
@Bruce understood. @PhilipDAth this might clear up a little misunderstanding. When you said L2, did you mean unmanaged or managed L2 (L2+ or whatever)
... View more
May 10 2021
3:00 PM
@Bruce Yeah I think it would be good to clarify what we mean here. I’m referring to your standard Netgear managed switch versus a standard Netgear unmanaged switch. Managed versus unmanaged is what I’m calling level three versus level two. Level two being synonymous with having zero granular control over what each port does by virtue of there being no interface through which to modify them. L2 Meraki switch is maybe L2+ which is probably what netgear calls “managed” like this for example: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07L644PRY/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_DQZH0E0H2C1FZ08Q2EK4?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1 Sure enough…
... View more
May 10 2021
2:28 PM
@Bruce this “So for PCs, etc. that only need one VLAN you use an access port and specify the VLAN, and the host doesn’t need to know anything about VLAN tags (the VLAN is defined by the port setting).” this requires an L3 switch if I want to single out a port on a switch for use on my client vlan (4) while my default is, say, 1. On an L2 switch all ports come out as whatever the default VLAN is on the last upstream port capable of setting a default VLAN is. “Where you need multiple VLANs, like to an access point or another switch, you use a trunk and the device needs to be able to tag traffic correctly - like an access point does.” Yea - which is great if I’m just doing a bunch of MRs. But my situation is somewhat fluid in the sense that at any given moment I may need to change a room from just having an MR in it to being a lab with 5 wired clients plus that MR. So the MR’s port would be trunk and SSID routed to VLAN 4, and the ports for all the wired machines would need to be flipped to access ports where VLAN 4 is the default so that all the clients join 4 without needing a virtual interface set up in their network config. All that make sense?
... View more
May 10 2021
10:02 AM
@PhilipDAth Re >>>>>>@PhilipDAth the other scenario where you couldn't get away with a L2 switch with multiple VLANs is if you wanted to create an access port for a wired client that couldn't do its own 802.1q VLAN selection, correct? If youre just throwing MR's up there no problem as they handle the VLAN tagging to clients. But wired clients which cant do a virtual interface would necessitate the L3 or they'd be subject to obtaining an IP on the default VLAN whatever it is on the nearest upstream port capable of setting a default VLAN. Yeah? --- Wondering how you handle this with L2 switches. Like my guess is youre doing mostly wireless deployments. I have a mixed network and I want my default VLAN separate from the client VLAN, so by necessity Id need to be able to set the default VLAN on a smattering of ports to my client VLAN along the way, while some of them remain the standard default so that the MRs connected to them live on that VLAN. And then without 802.1q, wired devices will default to the wrong VLAN. Im saying all this so that you can confirm I am not a total moron and am not missing some massive piece of information that would change how I understand VLANs.
... View more
May 9 2021
5:44 PM
@Inderdeep to this: >>>At last I would say it doesn’t matter how much traffic you are pushing out from L2 to MX if it is capable then you are always good but would think of what are your future needs how much traffic more you think comes and MX will handle. you mean specifically inter-VLAN traffic, correct?
... View more
May 9 2021
5:43 PM
@PhilipDAth the other scenario where you couldn't get away with a L2 switch with multiple VLANs is if you wanted to create an access port for a wired client that couldn't do its own 802.1q VLAN selection, correct? If youre just throwing MR's up there no problem as they handle the VLAN tagging to clients. But wired clients which cant do a virtual interface would necessitate the L3 or they'd be subject to obtaining an IP on the default VLAN whatever it is on the nearest upstream port capable of setting a default VLAN. Yeah?
... View more
May 9 2021
5:39 PM
1 Kudo
@PhilipDAth @Inderdeep man you guys are good. thanks you learn something new every day.
... View more
May 9 2021
5:31 PM
@PhilipDAth oh wow. So you just let all the traffic zoom around undifferentiated in the switch? Youre the pro here but doenst have have some security concerns or no? Ok so one more twist here is that the L2 switch is on the other side of a Ubiquiti wireless link (if Meraki made one that was as good id use it but the damn ubiquiti Point to point links are incredibly good) so there is a little extra latency involved if the packets have to do an extra trip. The traffic is not super low here. I have around 30 clients doing all manner of zoom calls, downloads, all kinds of stuff all day. There is a segment of the network that is 10GbE and uses L3 10GbE switches for just that reason - lots of 10GbE large transfers happening regularly there. I have around 70mbit going up and down at any given moment on my network consisting of various backups and things, on a total 250/250 fiber line which we rarely but sometimes peg. The communications are the most important thing. I have QOS enabled and all that but my main concern is if I have to spend a little more to make it just that much more idiot proof if somebody initiates a large file copy across the regular network, I want my bosses zoom or FaceTime or whatever to not miss a single beat.
... View more
May 9 2021
5:19 PM
@PhilipDAth @Inderdeep "Right … any round 3 😀?" Ok why not! So then the only case where it makes sense to bring in an L3 switch instead of the L2 in this situation is where I would be introducing another VLAN into the mix, say on another SSID or tagged wired on an access port or something, and traffic would be communicating back and forth between VLANs. Thats what Im getting from this. As long as the VLAN traffic is going between like-like VLAN clients and to and from WAN, this is fine. But once there begins to be inter-VLAN communication thats where it needs to return to the gateway which makes sense on L2. But with an L3 switch, traffic doesnt need to return to the gateway. It can be switched at L3 however many levels below the gateway it is located. I have all that right?
... View more
May 9 2021
5:00 PM
OK @Inderdeep @PhilipDAth that was round 1. Here is round 2. Lets say that instead of the port connecting the L3 to the L2 switch being an access port its a trunk port with VLAN 1 as the default VLAN and VLAN 4 as a tagged VLAN. One port on the L2 switch is uplink to the L3, but the other 7/8 ports on the L2 switch are MR52 access points that exist on VLAN 1 (default) but serve an SSID that corresponds to VLAN 4 and all client traffic both to and from the WAN as well as inter-client connection downstream of the L2 switch occurs on VLAN 4. Same thing?
... View more
May 9 2021
4:19 PM
1 Kudo
@PhilipDAth @Inderdeep Thanks for the replies. So am I to understand that if all clients are only members of a single VLAN and communicating to the internet and members of their own VLAN (facetime calls with eachother), that a L3 switch and a L2 switch are going to be functionally equivalent here? There's no benefit to me to using an L3 switch in this scenario? Or am I reading that incorrectly?
... View more
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4602 | Aug 24 2021 9:57 AM | |
| 1810 | Mar 8 2021 6:28 PM | |
| 2839 | Feb 28 2020 4:12 AM |
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | 8407 | |
| 10 | 3954 | |
| 6 | 1979 | |
| 3 | 8982 | |
| 3 | 3984 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
