Personally, and the Meraki gods will likely strike me down, but this exact use case is one I'm not a fan of using Meraki switches for. The reasoning behind my preference is the lack of ability in properly controlling the management interface of the MS switch. As @PhilipDAth said, you should statically assign the mgmt IP of the switch. However, my own irrational paranoia prevents me from being comfortable with giving the MS switch a public IP directly on the Internet so I would prefer to run a dedicated link into is on the "LAN" that's behind the MXs for Mgmt. But, should the switch lose its connection to the cloud over the statically configured Mgmt IP it will DHCP for an address on any and every interface and VLAN it possibly can. This can have unexpected consequences like the switch grabbing an available IP, preventing your MX from getting one. You have to understand your specific situation and decide for yourself if things like this are a problem. @typeraj wrote: From everything I've read on here, even a simple unmanaged switch should work, so I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong with this MS120. Any help would be much appreciated. I disagree with this statement as your diagram would indicate that you require VLANs to segregate the two different WAN services, and unmanaged switches are note VLAN capable. You are creating two different VLANs, one for each Internet service, yes?
... View more