Yep (MS 17.1.3) ... View more

What MX firmware are you running (just curious). ... View more

👏👏👏Progress! ... View more

MX Warm Spare - High-Availability Pair has a troubleshooting section towards the bottom that might assist you.  Not sure if you have already read this or are following the suggested implementation practices. ... View more

How many APs are at these locations?   Are the APs in close proximity to one another? Are you applying one RF profile to all APs at those locations or does each AP have its own RF profile? I've seen this behavior when one RF profile was assigned to all APs in close proximity. ... View more

A new stable appliance firmware is now available on Tue, 29 Oct 2024  ... View more

MX 18.211.4 improved high device utilization for one of my many MX75s.  At another location, one MX105 seems to perform better during peak utilization periods (active concurrent sessions). ... View more

MX - Security & SD-WAN is a good starting point. ... View more

Congrats to all 👏👏👏 ... View more

Moving Devices between Networks should help you move the APs from old to new network. ... View more

https://community.meraki.com/t5/Wireless/Umbrella-and-Meraki-integration/m-p/80787 ... View more

Whitepaper: DNS Security with Meraki MR & Umbrella  Manually Integrating Cisco Umbrella with Meraki Networks  ... View more

What firmware are you running? There are some troubleshooting steps here MX Warm Spare - HA Pair that might assist you. ... View more

How are you applying group policies to devices?  Is that L7 rule in the group policies for those devices as well as the firewall? ... View more

Maybe...Cisco Secure Connect  ... View more

Secure Connect Resource Hub  Apr 15 2024 11:29 AM❓ ... View more

Meraki Campus LAN; Planning, Design Guidelines and Best Practices  Link Aggregation and Load Balancing    These might help you make more informed decisions (for your consideration). ... View more

Same document referenced above: The default priority for all Meraki switches is 32768. It is recommended that you set the priority of your desired root bridge to 4096 to ensure its election. The root bridge should be a switch in the center of the network, near high traffic sources (such as servers), to optimize traffic flow across the network. Using priority 0 is also acceptable for the root, but leaves no room for modification when replacing a core switch in production or modifying behavior temporarily. It is best practices to set a layered approach to the STP priorities in a network. For instance, if there is a clear Core <> Distribution <> Access Layer, priorities should be Core (4096), Distribution (16384), and Access (61440). At no point in a production network should you leave the any switch at its default configurations.    I set my MS425s at 4096 and everything else at 61440. If you were to type loopguard in the community search field you will see several other posts that have issues with it, some have shared their thoughts/feedback on the use of loopguard.   The Meraki Best Practice Designs and Deployment Guides that I tend to follow or mirror in my setups/configurations show core switch downlinks with rootguard. ... View more

Correction (meant to say): nd STP guard set to disabled on the higher priority MS250s or MS350s uplinks. ... View more

Maybe you have already done this but I'd be inclined to check the root bridge priority of all switches as the 1st task to make sure the MS425s reflect as the RSTP ROOT being the core switch as that could be part of the issue. Switching > Configure > Switch settings Configuring Spanning Tree on Meraki Switches (MS)    I tend to use root guard at the MS425 downlink and STP guard set to disabled on the lower priority MS250s or MS350s uplinks. ... View more

MX 18.211.4 did improve one of my many MX75s that had been averaging 67% device utilization while running 18.211.3.  I’ve yet to roll the dice on MX 19.1.5 and also curious about what others are seeing.  I’ve had no high device utilization issues on the MX68s. ... View more

My apologies - I just re-read your Q and realized you were referring to two MX devices.  Wrong link shared above (dual wan vs dual MX).  Comprehension - some days are better than others (for me), sorry. ... View more

MX Load Balancing and Flow Preferences  ... View more

One idea if you are wanting to AVOID moving the MX from one network to another because removing the MX and adding it to a different network would wipe the current config....is to simply RENAME the current network to be labeled as the second location (network) and once that's completed with addresses or locations adjusted, create another network naming it whatever it was labeled/titled.  Then move devices that wouldn't be as complex (such as switches or APs).  ... View more

Not that I am aware of - perhaps others can chime in and give their recommendations/suggestions.  Hopefully some of the info shared has proved beneficial to you and if so, please leave a KUDO. ... View more