Is the MX the only firewall that does not use it's own lookup?  Most firewalls I've seen work just fine by doing their own lookups.  Might be a good idea to implement this on the MX too.  Too many rules I have need to double up by adding the IP's from the responses I do myself. ... View more

Oh okay nice.  So when a vlan is scoped it will behave like a group policy that overrides the local firewall but leave other vlans untouched. ... View more

Thanks for your reply. I will wait to receive the equipment to try by myself. ... View more

It is bad design to interconnect your access layer switches. Always double uplink your access switches to a distribution switch/stack. And of course if you can make sure your uplinks use a different path for decent redundancy. Also having copper links in uplink port-channels is a risk since you can have negotiation issues where one link gets negotiated lower than 1 Gbps causing your port-channel to drop.  So fiber is recommended between distribution and access layer even if you are only using 1 Gbps links. ... View more

I used to manually configure the RF profile - but the built-in profiles are now so good, I only use those.   99% of the time I use the open office profile.   I then use the option to make it the default for the network for any new APs deployed.   ... View more

Hey, did you test this at all? Was researching VRF's (as I saw it in the org) and was wondering if anyone had tried to implement yet of if any docs had been released ... View more

This shows you are using a native VLAN of 4.  The other end has to match.   With different flavours of spanning tree, I personally think it is safer to use a native VLAN of 1. ... View more

Have you checked to see if there is any difference between the old and new dashboard in terms of how they sort? ... View more

Sos did I. 🙁 Saving Meraki socks as an investment, was not exactly on my bingo card. But good to know! ... View more

Thanks for this - great suggestion!   I had tried to get into the page earlier but it wasn't working. Tried again and sure enough, both WAN interfaces had been set to 1Gbps fixed for some unknown reason. Changed to 1/10 Auto and working perfectly now.   Cheers! ... View more

Looks like the page was last updated 8/8/2025 but the MS lines were updated 😥.  At least we tried. Restricting Traffic with Isolated Switch Ports  Still shows: Port isolation on MS switch models MS210, MS225, MS250, MS350, MS355, MS410, MS450 and MS425 series will block all traffic (L2/L3) between 2 switch ports with port isolation enabled in the same or different VLANs on the same switch.  ... View more

So why then organize a contest and write that your closet is bursting with gifts and everyone who leaves a comment will receive them. But how is it really? Half of them received them? How many did not receive them? I'm waiting 3 weeks instead of 3 days to read that you didn't calculate.?(( ... View more

BIG Congrats to the Meraki Community Employee All-Stars!!!  ... View more

FINALY i choose mtu 9 416 ... View more

Two days ago Cisco released the 17.18.1 IOS-XE release so it's only a matter of time before we get the version in dashboard 😉 ... View more

Congratulations to the top 12 and to @PierreCharles, @outram. Keep up the good work! Thanks @Ryan_Miles for always being willing to jump into threads to help out.   And thanks to the community as a whole! It only exists because of everyone's great contributions 🙂 ... View more

He would need 80 MHz channels on the Dual-5 to break the 1 Gig-barrier. I would be highly relaxed with 1Gig, but monitor it. ... View more

Another user posted recently about slow performance using an MX450 (or possibly MX250) in a hub-spoke topology.   Run a quick search - was in the last couple of weeks.  User is working with TAC ... View more

I’d like to share some feedback regarding the recent updates to the Client360 dashboard. While I appreciate the enhanced visibility into client onboarding issues and the streamlined troubleshooting workflows, I’ve noticed several limitations that impact our day-to-day operations: Loss of Application Visibility: The removal of built-in application and traffic insights—unless ThousandEyes is integrated—has reduced our ability to monitor client experience effectively. This functionality was previously available without additional licensing and was critical for policy setup and performance analysis. Licensing Barrier: Requiring ThousandEyes for full application monitoring introduces a cost and setup barrier that may not be feasible for all organizations, especially those who relied on the legacy features. Limited Historical Data: The one-week lookback window restricts our ability to perform long-term trend analysis and identify recurring issues. Fragmented Context: Navigating between dashboard sections sometimes causes loss of context, making it harder to track client issues across different views. We value the direction Meraki is taking with Client360 and hope future updates will restore some of the legacy functionality or offer more flexible integration options. Thank you for your continued innovation and support. ... View more

Depending on the number of sites you have, would replacing the 10.0.0.0/8 with a series of /14 networks instead work?   route 10.0.0.0/14 ... route 10.4.0.0/14 ... route 10.8.0.0/14 ... route 10.12.0.0/14 ... route 10.16.0.0/14 ...   ... View more

Darren made an excellent point with the amount of tunnels since if both are running in NAT mode and each side has 2 ISP's you can take your site count and quadruple that number to know your tunnel count. However maximum sessions is indeed another issue to tackle with.  It must be that you have too many hosts each making small concurrent sessions.  In that case if you want to keep the SD-WAN design you may need to change up to one-armed concentrators instead and group branches each to their own preferred concentrator. ... View more

When physical stacking ports go down and your stacking cables have been tested then you simply have a crashing switch and are in need of an RMA.  That support engineer shouldn't have left you by yourself and should have helped more. I suggest you call in about the case and friendly ask for an RMA. Do know that MS 410's are practically no longer in supply and the chances they will give you a C9300 variant instead is possible.  That would be a C9300-48S.  In that case make sure they replace both stack units since you cannot stack a C9300 with an MS410 obviously.  And they will have to convert your licenses. I recently had a simple issue with a MS410-16 stack and they replaced it with C9300-24S switches.  And had those issies where they only replaced one at first ;p. ... View more

I'm seeing the same thing, any idea if this is expected based on switch model? Also, are 9300s/9200s supported. The documentation only lists MS models: https://documentation.meraki.com/MS/Monitoring_and_Reporting/MS_Device_Health   ... View more