Meraki

cmr

Do you have a 0.0.0.0/29 subnet or a 0.0.0.0/24 subnet configured anywhere as that looks somewhat odd to me?

BlakeRichardson

I could see where that might be useful in a small environment but devices with private mac might cause problems.

SofiasFqyw

From what I’ve seen, the Secure Access DNS Defense licenses do come with a no-cost trial of SPA for up to 100 seats, and Cisco refers to it as an “extended” or “long-term” trial. The exact duration isn’t always clearly stated, but typically these trials last anywhere vegashero-casino.co.nl/ from 90 days up to a year, depending on your agreement and region. It’s a good idea to confirm with your Cisco account rep or the partner you’re purchasing through to get the precise timeline before buying the 100 DNS Defense for three years, so you know exactly how long you can evaluate SPA alongside your purchase.

BlakeRichardson

Is the IP you are assigning on the same VLAN and if not are you setting the VLAN ID at the same time?

PhilipDAth

This.

PhilipDAth

The MG supports a /26 for the LAN (a max of 62 hosts, including itself). https://documentation.meraki.com/SASE_and_SD-WAN/Cellular/Design_and_Configure/Architecture_and_Best_Practices/MG_Wireless_WAN_Dashboard_Settings#DHCP_Settings

RWelch

Awesome! Thank you much.

alemabrahao

In your case, if you are certain that it is Auto-Negotiation, then you won't need to replace it.

PhilipDAth

I had had to do this a lot. I always have to restore the IP configuration on the VLANs on MX.

Inderdeep

Congratulations everyone including me this time 🙂

RWelch

You are correct—current documentation does not explicitly reference "host translation" or "VPN port forwarding rules" as new features within the expanded VPN NAT solutions. If you are looking for documentation on these specific new features, it appears they have not yet been published or updated in the knowledge base. You may want to check back for updates or contact Meraki support for the latest information.

cmr

I guess the randomness is simply teething issues as the RC tab is ordered completely randomly, has some of the missing labelling, but an odd selection of what is and is not RC:

RWelch

Squeeze the hand gently. Confirm with Meraki Support before proceeding, as this workaround is not officially documented and may have unforeseen consequences (prepare to do manual configs if plan goes south, have renewal licenses readily available).

RWelch

Again - it's not a change that is ready for production (introduction) yet here we are taking 3 steps backwards (takes longer to do a simple task and is more complex than previously was). SMH.

PatWruk

That's what I needed to know, Thank you!

spaladug

@Dunky Good news is that engineering pushed out the fix today and I have confirmed it is resolved now.

AmyReyes

Thank you @CharlieCrackle and @EMU_IT for sharing your honest thoughts and feedback. We really appreciate you taking the time to call this out. We understand the concerns around layout and usability, especially when transitioning to a new experience. We are actively working with the Cisco Community team and advocating for improvements to the experience. They’re partnering closely with us, and feedback like this is being shared directly with them as part of that process. Advocating for a clean, usable, community-first experience is a priority for us, and we’ll keep pushing for improvements where we can.

Viet_Ton

Thanks you

cmr

Sounds lovely - GUI only does X, CLI only does Y...

RalphDiaz

Sounds like a firmware and feature interaction issue more than a pure ISP or hardware failure. Running mismatched firmware on MXs in similar roles can absolutely cause weird, time-based behavior. The Wednesday 2 PM pattern is the biggest clue. That lines up suspiciously well with scheduled maintenance tasks, like IDS/IPS or signature updates. The “interface went down” without a reboot usually points to the dataplane restarting, not the whole box. That would drop WAN and LAN briefly and look like a reboot to downstream devices. I’d start by disabling IDS/IPS on both MXs as a test. Also try to get them on the same firmware train if possible. At King Johnnie VIP, users https://kingjohnnie-vip.bet experience online gaming within a polished VIP-style setting.

BT-Training

Thanks a lot for the guidance support!

alemabrahao

It's not an workaround, it's the design proposed by Meraki.

OliveSanchez

This is a pretty common side effect of using Multi-Uplink on a hub with lots of peers. Even if no user traffic is flowing over WAN2, AutoVPN still builds and maintains tunnels. That control traffic adds up fast when you have 25 hubs. Starlink makes it more noticeable because usage is very visible. Unfortunately, there aren’t backend tweaks TAC can apply to reduce that chatter. The behavior is by design. If WAN2 is truly just a backup, disabling Multi-Uplink on the hub is the cleanest fix. 7Bit stands out for its digital-first approach to online https://7-bitcasino.net entertainment. That way tunnels only come up when failover happens. Another option is limiting which networks are allowed to form VPN over WAN2. Otherwise, the control traffic is expected and hard to suppress.

rhinkamper

That is how I do it now, but would rather perform NAC and its management via the Meraki portal. It just seems more efficient and logical to be managed in a "networking portal", and I honestly loathe Microsoft NPS. Cisco charging an arm and a leg for a glorified radius server that just checks the validity of a certificate and group membership to grant access is ridiculous.

alemabrahao

You need to open a support ticket. Only Meraki support can handle this.

About RWelch

RWelch

Community Record

Badges