Meraki

rhbirkelund · ‎Jul 1 2022

There are no plans for Meraki Personas on C91xx Access Points. This will only be a thing on CW916x Access Points, besides Catalyst 9k switches.

macsolutions · ‎Jun 30 2022

I purchased a POE tester to take to the location to test the port as well. Thank you for these ideas.

thomasthomsen · ‎Jun 23 2022

This has been on the "wish list" for a long time I think. But nope, we still do not have that feature.

EJN · ‎Jun 22 2022

https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Using_a_Cisco_Meraki_Access_Point_as_a_Mesh_Repeater

RomanMD · ‎Jun 22 2022

The device doesn't rely on the snmp information. Snmp is another way to expose some information from the switch. So the OID's may or may not be implemented.

RomanMD · ‎Jun 17 2022

the sunglasses are nice but I think smaller fonts and darker colors would be a better reward...

RomanMD · ‎Jun 17 2022

Do you think they teach Meraki now in the college?! 🤪

lesliebright · ‎Jun 15 2022

I think you're right. I believe the setup creates a 1:1 relationship between the MX and the Azure application. This makes me want to limit the number of possible connection points for a whole other reason now...

Tiro · ‎May 31 2022

Thanks Guys! @AutomationDude I actually watched your video before your reply. I think I got my python script ready, and I'd like to use Azure function to make it run on a schedule.

RomanMD · ‎May 28 2022

I experience the same behaviour with MR56 running 28.6. Two AP's connected to different switch models, the same behaviour, however, it does not happen too often. It could be once per week or more rare. Did not dig further what exactly happens, but looking at the other thread, makes me want to dig dipper next time when it happens.

Inderdeep · ‎Sep 8 2021

@Aneeshram : Best of luck 🤞

monicajiao · ‎Sep 2 2021

may I know why this practice did not update anymore?

Zendev · ‎Aug 25 2021

I needed to create a deep link for the appliance. And, the problem is that the network don't return all urls. Ultimately, it comes down to recovering all of the devices (and associated urls). But when i retrieve /devices I can also retrieve the mac address and use the deep link for the mac. In reality, which would have been perfect is to have a deep link for the serial

Tim271 · ‎Aug 10 2021

I finally got around to giving your suggestions a try. It appeared to work in the building that was giving me problems, but when I returned to a location that did not have a problem, I was experiencing the same thing. Could this all be a result of interference even if other devices in the same room, connected to the same WAP are not experiencing the same thing? That is what appeared to happen yesterday. Granted, there were other non-computer electronic devices in the room and a Mac connected to the WAP as well, but the other PC in the room did not experience an unstable connection.

Natthaphol · ‎Aug 5 2021

Hi AutomationDude, Thanks for your reply. It's the question from one of my customers and they have asked for a reference. I do not sure exactly why they come up with this idea.

Eddie01 · ‎Aug 2 2021

Thank you all for your replies, spoke with the customer and he will be splitting the network. Regards

RomanMD · ‎Aug 2 2021

@GIdenJoe I can assure you this is browser dependent. As you can see this is an experimental feature in Chrome. Maybe Firefox have implemented it too.. who knows... In my very extensive testing on MacOS, I can see this happening in Chrome, but I can't see it happening in Safari regardless of the quality you choose. Nor did the QUIC fallback mechanism work while the UDP ports are blocked. So I would avoid using QUIC at this moment, if possible.

RomanMD · ‎Aug 2 2021

As I understand it, you have a FW cluster behind an MX cluster. In that scenario, it seems that you need to connect both firewalls to both MX'es (MX cluster does not operate in Active-Active scenario for simple routing purposes), otherwise, if your primary FW will crash while the primary MX will still be up nothing - good will happen.

RomanMD · ‎Jul 19 2021

All API calls for management interface are referring to MX, even the one you said, from v0. Therefore, I don't think there is a way to determine the Uplink for a MS switch, unless you prepare it yourself. For instance, you can tag the uplink ports so later you can identify them via tag. Or, another way would be to check the CDP/LLDP neighbour and try to compute it yourself, if your network IP address scheme permits.

dhayes89 · ‎Jul 16 2021

I like your answer, although I used the other solution. I will contact SAML Admins.

RomanMD · ‎Jul 16 2021

No, this will not work. Two Meraki MXes in different organizations can establish site to site VPN only as Non-Meraki peers.

rconiv · ‎Jul 15 2021

Thank you, that's what I wanted to verify.

Moraks · ‎Jul 15 2021

Hi Romand, Thank you, the current version is 28.2, I have logged the case with the TAC, trying to upload the PCAP on one of the AP.

RomanMD · ‎Jul 14 2021

DHCP has nothing to do with accessing a share folder. You should understand your topology and what you want to achieve. If you'll explain in more details what is your topology and what is not working, we can suggest you where to look...

RomanMD · ‎Jul 13 2021

the port between MX and switch, as best practice - should be trunk and allowing vlan 20 and maybe management vlan for switch. So, most probably you have a problem between switch and mx.

About RomanMD

RomanMD

Community Record

Badges