Meraki

alemabrahao

Yes, it needs to be included in the hybrid network, as Meraki recommends. In other words, it needs to be included in non-Meraki devices as well.

alemabrahao

You can enable features like 802.1X Authentication, MAC Address Throttling, and Port Security, and enable alerts. MS Switch Access Policies (802.1X) - Cisco Meraki Documentation How to Configure Port Security on Meraki Switches - Stratus Information Systems Dashboard Alerts - Configuration Issues - Cisco Meraki Documentation Network Alerts and Notifications - Cisco Meraki Documentation

alemabrahao

Yes, it is totally possible, if you feel more comfortable you can configure a new VLAN for this purpose, and activate DHCP in it, so you don't need to fix the IP, or you can also make an IP reservation in DHCP, but Meraki is super simple, you just need to have an IP that can communicate with the internet and the rest is basically configuration in the network on the dashboard.

alemabrahao

It was a pleasure to help you. Guys, just to let you know that I was helping @mcoomber closely, one of the things that was missing was to create VLAN 30 on a 3850 switch that was between the MX and the MS. In addition, not all APs had the switch port configured for trunk, which was also causing the problem (this was confirmed by Meraki). So in short, it wasn't just about allowing VLAN 30 in the SSID and configuring trunk on the ports, it was still necessary to configure the VLAN on the Catalyst switch.

alemabrahao

Maybe it will help you. Network Alerts and Notifications - Cisco Meraki Documentation Integrate the Cisco Meraki API with the Twilio API - Pipedream

alemabrahao

It would be a good idea to call Meraki, I think their service will be faster. https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Support/Ways_to_Contact_Meraki_Support#Contact_Support_by_Phone

alemabrahao

You can see some graphs in Security & SD-WAN > Device Status in the Meraki dashboard. You can also see some in Network > Monitor > Clients. This page shows detailed usage data by client, including application breakdowns. Organization > Summary Report provides an overview of device usage, including the MX device. And you can do more detailed traffic analysis by going to Network > Traffic Analysis. Clients Usage Page Overview - Cisco Meraki Documentation Device Utilization - Cisco Meraki Documentation

alemabrahao

I sent you a private message.

alemabrahao

Using Secure Connect to configure your cloud firewall can be beneficial, but it does require some consideration. I think it would be a good idea to consult a Meraki SE to help you define the best design for your environment.

alemabrahao

Yes, the MR28 would be an option, but it would be interesting for you to consult your Sales Manager Maraki to help you choose an access point. It goes far beyond the technical specifications in the data sheet, so it would be good to talk to this person to raise all the possible needs you may have.

alemabrahao

When you configure High Availability (HA) on Meraki MX devices, including the MX85, the devices use the VRRP to send heartbeat messages. MX Warm Spare - High-Availability Pair - Cisco Meraki Documentation

alemabrahao

SmartPort Automation may sometimes fail to apply the correct configuration, leading to issues like the one you are experiencing. There may be conflicts or misconfigurations when using named VLANs with dynamic assignment capabilities. Make sure that the VLAN names and IDs are mapped correctly and are consistent across your network. In your case, I would suggest opening a support case with Meraki. I believe they will be able to assist you further.

alemabrahao

Have you checked that the RPC service is running and set to Automatic on both domain controllers? "error: 1726. The remote procedure call failed" errror message on - Microsoft Community

alemabrahao

You are using Co-Term or Per-Device Licensing. The definition is that the devices will literally stop working, that is, your network will become inoperable. I have seen some cases where with Per-Device Licensing, even after the grace period expired, it continued to work, but let's face it, even if it is a bug, I believe that you should have the good sense to renew the licenses, right? I think it is a question of trust.

alemabrahao

From what I understand, you are trying to configure the tunnel only with the correct HUB? In practice, it should work, there are no limitations. Have you managed to capture packets on the WAN interface of the MX? See the troubleshooting guide. https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Site-to-site_VPN/Troubleshooting_Non-Meraki_Site-to-site_VPN_Peers

alemabrahao

Maybe it will work using Filter-Id attribute in the RADIUS response to specify the profile to be applied. Take a look at this document. How To: Integrate Meraki Networks with ISE - Cisco Community

alemabrahao

For catalyst switches I know that these models can be applied to specific ports and can be dynamically linked using Authorization via ISE. But for MS I believe it will not work due to the particularities that MS has in relation to the configurations that are made.

alemabrahao

To be quite honest, I personally prefer this approach. Using an L3 Switch as the network core to route all internal traffic and the MX only to control what goes to the Internet. Some people think it's simpler to leave everything on the MX, but I think I prefer to separate it into layers. The only traffic I would leave on the MX as a gateway would be to the Guest network and DMZ, to isolate communication with my internal network. 😄

alemabrahao

In fact, you don't even need a public IP for the switch, just create a link network between the switch and the MX (/30) and point the default route to the MX. See this document. https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Recommended_Topologies/MX_and_MS_Basic_Recommended_Layer_3_Topology

alemabrahao

If you have a public IP available it is totally possible, you just need to assign the IP to the Switch and create a default route pointing to the MX.

alemabrahao

https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Networks_and_Routing/MX_Layer_2_Functionality#LACP_and_Link_Aggregation

alemabrahao

Yes, it is entirely possible, I have even configured Warm spare on other clients using both WAN ports and it worked perfectly. Sorry, as port channel no, Meraki MX does not support port channel.

alemabrahao

Perfect, so everything leads us to believe that there is probably some problem with the cable that was passed, perhaps the color sequence.

alemabrahao

Check it out. Re: Report on 2.4Ghz clients - The Meraki Community Solved: Reporting on clients connecting at 2.4GHz - The Meraki Community

alemabrahao

To be honest I don't know the answer, but I believe these two links can help you. Customers with both Meraki and Umbrella Organizations - Cisco Meraki Documentation Cisco Secure Connect Foundation Meraki SD-WAN Integration - Cisco Meraki Documentation

About alemabrahao

alemabrahao

Alessandro Abrahao

Community Record

Badges