Woohoo! Awesome! Can't wait to play with my camera! 😄 Congratualtions and thanks to all, and also to @MeredithW 😄 ... View more

I seem to remember a few cases, I've had where the customer complained that their network was down. Turns out it was due to license expiry. So I'm rather sure that SSID's will continue to beacon/broadcast, but your network won't be switching traffic, as @DarrenOC and @Brash are stating. ... View more

@PhilipDAth wrote: .. I'm been contemplating writing a syslog "server" in Python, purely to provide an easy way to be able to have something I can start on my computer to watch for short periods of time what is being blocked or allowed. Something liket this? - https://gist.github.com/marcelom/4218010   ... View more

You are right that for some reason, the PolicyObject Endpoint doesn't exist in the API Documentation on http://developer.cisco.com/meraki.   However, if you browse to the "old API documentation" you can actually find the endpoint there. When you're logged in to your Dashboard, click on Help -> API Docs. There, browse down to Policy Objects. Previously they were known as Network Objects, but that API is deprecated. Now it's called PolicyObject - just like the endpoint that you have found yourself.     It's not optimal that Meraki has two different API Documentations and that they are not alligned. Hopfully that is something, Meraki will get fixed. Perhaps @MeredithW can help with poking the right people?   Anyhow, make sure to keep in mind to check both API Docs - the one at developer.cisco.com, and Meraki's own under the Help tab. ... View more

Honestly, I'm a bit unsure. I just know that my CPE wouldn't forward any traffic to my MX at home, unless I explicitly allowed GRE traffic. I was confused as well. ... View more

Iirc, I couldn't get ClientVPN to work until I forwarded/allowed GRE traffic to my MX. Perhaps, that's it? ... View more

There's also the API documentation where you click Help at the top right corner in your Dashboard, and select API Docs. While it does reference developer.cisco.com, it may show some additional info. In your case, with the example above, the API Docs, also shows an example response.   Not sure if that helps. ... View more

Hm.. Odd.. Hope Meraki Support will give you the answers. 🙂 ... View more

I've asked in my own case, as it was still open. Let's see what they get back with... ... View more

Not sure if you already have done this, but my experience is that you have to add the subnet which the HUBs IP recides on, as a local subnet to be advertised to the spokes, as well.. ... View more

It wouldn't be the first time that Meraki had blocked use of certain channels eventhough they are allowed for use.   I'd open a case with Meraki and ask why they are not available. And perhaps CC my local SE/Sales Rep.. ... View more

Yeah, exactly. My first thought was, that perhaps somehow the port bar on the website got flipped due to a gui bug of some sort. So I tried clearing my cache, and with different browsers - even with different laptops. Still the same.   But like I said, it still works, and it’s placed in a non-recommendable environment inside a lamppost. Inorder for them to fit it in there they even had to open up the box and solder power cables directly to the board, for the switch to fit. So warranty has been voided anyway. I did manage to talk support into opening a case anyway, but as mentioned closed while I was on vacation, and I haven’t been bothered since. 🙂 ... View more

@cmr, there is no such thing as overkill for ones home! ... View more

I have the exact same issue with a switch at one of my customers. A colleague of mine, experienced the same.   In my case this is a MS120-8LP aswell. I opened a case about it, but we didn't it resolved, and the case closed while I was on vacation, and I haven't bothered with it since.    My experience is that an AP on port 7, and if I disable PoE on port 2, the AP on port 7 goes down, but nothing on port 2. If I reverese it, same thing happens.    The switch works fine, and the customer hasn't complained yet., Besides the switch is located outside in a lamppost, so they arent expecting much longevity of that particular switch aswell. ... View more

According to Merak Terms of Use, shipments may take up to five days.   To request a return materials authorization (RMA), please complete the RMA request form in the Meraki dashboard. If your RMA request is approved, Cisco Meraki will email you an RMA number and a return shipping label free of charge. We will ship replacement units within five business days of receiving your defective units. If no trouble is found, we will contact you before taking further action.   https://meraki.cisco.com/support/#policies:return @Inderdeep it may differ if you have any extended Cisco Service..   ... View more

Hm MA-ANT-23 datsheet doesn't mention MR84 as supported, but the MR84 data sheet says that MA-ANT-23 antenna is supported.  Perhaps @CarolineS or @MerakiDave can shed some light on this? Perhaps the data sheets need a refresh. ... View more

I’m pretty sure the MR84 supports the Cisco stadium antenna as well though, but it’s not in the datasheets, so I opted to leave it out. ... View more

I've found sometimes that "complex" shared secrets tend to be the issue. I'm not sure why or how, but reconfiguring a shared secret to something less complex works sometimes. Other times simply just reconfiguring ClientVPN also does the trick. But that might just be due to local error. 😉   Not sure if the complexity thing here applies to your case.  ... View more

@Bruce wrote: I’d do one link from SWX1 to primary MX, and a second link to the primary MX from SWX2. Likewise with the standby MX, one link to SWX1 and another to SWX2. Have all links configured the same, and let STP take care of blocking one of the links to each MX.    Why would you run redundant link from the Primary MX, as well as the Secondary when running Warm Spare? Is it really that important to keep using the Primary MX?   If MX-Pri is connected to SW1 in a stack, and MX-Sec is connected to SW2 in a stack. If Sw1 fails, failover to MX -Sec will occur, and failover time is  less than 30 seconds, from failure detection to be processing VPN packets again.    Redundant links between MX and switch would imho, only make sense you were aggregating links, but since the MX does not support LACP, that's out of the picture.   Depending on your Spanning-Tree domain, when the network converges, you'll might already have exceeded the time it takes for Warm Spare failover.  ... View more

If you're doing L3 handoff on the Switches, rather than the MX, in principle, you'll only have 1 local VLAN on the MX which will serve as a form of transit VLAN.    If you just make sure to Trunk the VLAN between both MX'es and the Switch, you should be fine VRRP-wise. One of the requirements of Warm Spare is to not prune VLANs. VRRP heartbeats will flow on all VLANs created on the MX. So if you only have 1 vlan on the MX (serving as the transit VLAN to the switch)    Regarding failover incase of a switch failure, if MX1(Pri) is connected to SW1, and MX2(Sec) is connected to SW2, w/o the back-to-back link, if SW1 fails, failover from MX1 to MX2 will occur.    What issues are you seeing? Regarding Spanning-Tree on Cisco Classic and Meraki, you'd might want to consider running MSTP (I think?  You'd might want to reference documentation on that..), eventhough MX'es don't participate in Spanning-Tree. ... View more

This is what I use..   The hardcoded status_code = 201, is only declared for testing purposes and its just "faking" a succesful POST towards the API.. Remove it, and uncomment the actual request(). ... for _ in range(MAX_RETRIES): try: resp.status_code = 201 # r = requests.request( # 'POST', # url, # headers = headers, # data = payload # ) if resp.status_code == 201: if index < len(p_sitelist)-1: LOGGER.info(f"[ Create Networks ]: Network {site['Network']} created successfully! On to Next..") #print(f"Network {site['Network']} created successfully! On to Next..\n") break else: LOGGER.info(f"[ Create Networks ]: No more networks to create.") #print("No more networks to create.") return elif resp.status_code == 429: LOGGER.warning(f'[ Create Networks ]: Rate limited - Retrying after {r.headers["Retry-After"]}.') #print(f'Rate limited - Retrying after {resp.headers["Retry-After"]}.') time.sleep(int(resp.headers['Retry-After'])) continue else: LOGGER.critical(f'[ Create Networks ]: Unexpected status code: {r.status_code} returned from server.\n Msg: {r.text}') raise SystemExit(f'Unexpected status code: {r.status_code} returned from server.\n Msg: {r.text}') except Exception as e: LOGGER.error("[ Create Networks ]: Unknown error..") LOGGER.exception(e) #pprint(e) return ""   ... View more