Meraki

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jun 5 2022

For a while now around 50% of the time we can't submit a new ticket. Different browsers, different networks, etc. No matter what you put in, the submit button won't illuminate.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎May 19 2022

We are huge Meraki fans. But we're forced to agree with some of the points here. We've had a ticket open since January that just got an update - in Spanish. While we are based in California, our Spanish isn't great. Why was it replied to in Spanish? I have no idea. The translation didn't make a lot of sense either, it was talking about VPNs (the issue was with IPV6 WAN, no VPN involved). We also have had a ticket open requesting an RMA on a switch for a couple weeks, can't get anyone to reply or acknowledge it. Some changes need to be made at the top level for customer support, or Meraki is going to start losing a lot of enterprise clients that frankly they probably can't afford to lose. You can lose someone spending a couple thousand, but lose a few 7 figure clients, and that isn't sustainable. Our site wide renewal is in 2024, and we're one of those 7 figure clients that may find ourselves shopping for the first time in many, many years.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎May 6 2022

The L7 rule for P2P is very, very broken and has been since the switch to NBAR. We unfortunately had to disable it and create breakout rules for the most popular P2P apps like Bittorrent.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 7 2022

I'll follow up with Spectrum on that and see what they say. This thread has been much more constructive so far than my support ticket, so I'm very appreciative! Are there any behind the scenes logs that may or may not show what the MX is doing when I turn on the IPV6? It "thinks" it is connected as it shows the assigned /127 being green, but I'm not sure what logic it uses to determine that.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 6 2022

@AlexP we gave pcaps initially in the trouble ticket, and I just took one as well.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 6 2022

I'll have to check. However we can't even get the /127 on the MX to respond. The "gateway" of the /127 which is Spectrum's on prem router, pings and traces just fine. The only other IP in the /127, which is what we have assigned to the MX, doesn't ping. The MX shows the IP addresses green and online. According to Spectrum: Looks we are not receiving any Router advertising from your service, claiming the IPv6 address. Captured traffic shows that we are getting the client's solicitation, where they are asking for our IP address. Our device is responding to them with a Router Advertisement. Our device is sending out Solicitations asking for the client IP. We are not receiving any Router advertisement from the client, claiming the IPv6 address.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 6 2022

@cmr Entirely possible that's the case. But if so, we'd rather they just come out and tell us "it won't work yet" instead of having a ticket open for 3 months now, and not replying to us when we ask for an update on the status. We even reached out to our rep, who told us they were no longer our rep, and that the issue would be passed along to the appropriate party. That was only 2-3 weeks ago. Not a good look when our very expensive renewal and product refresh is coming up in 2024...we're talking a 7 figure number here.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 6 2022

No idea - but the NBAR system is very wonky right now. Someone mentioned early 16x still uses Brightcloud, but we have systems still in the 16x train that are getting NBAR logs.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 5 2022

Nbar is wildly inaccurate right now. It likes to classify everything as peer to peer, including dns. That was a fun one. We've had to disable l7 and content filtering rules for peer to peer which seems to fix it for now.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 5 2022

Has anyone had any success with IPv6 and the MX84? We have been trying to deploy since January and have an open case with support that we can't get any response on. We are using spectrum (legacy charter) fiber. They assign us a /127. Basically like a /30 point to point in ipv4. One end of the /127 is their CiscoME, the other is our mx. We then have a /48 routed to us that we can break up in to /64s however we please. The MX will show the assigned /127 as being up, but will not route traffic. Spectrum support says their end is working fine, and pcaps seem to support this. This is delaying our IPv6 deployment as we are testing it inhouse before deploying company wide. Suggestions??

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Feb 8 2022

Manually created the /48. Spectrum consumer uses DHCPv6 to assign the addresses, Spectrum Enterprise does not. From Spectrum's packet captures on their side of the Cisco ME and from our side on the MX, we can see that the ME is broadcasting it's RA, and the MX is doing a router solicitation, but the MX never replies to the RA from the Cisco ME. Meraki support is still looking at it...weeks later.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Feb 2 2022

Has anyone got IPv6 to work on the MX series using Spectrum (legacy Charter) Enterprise? Set is as follows: Spectrum assigns /127. First IP is gateway, second IP is "IP Address" in WAN setup Spectrum assigns /48 to be routed. Created /48 as assigned by Spectrum in IPv6 prefixes tab. Assigned it to WAN 1 as origin. Assigned test VLAN /64. The MX shows that it is connected on the IP assigned in step 1. Devices in test VLAN get appropriate /64 setup. However, no IPv6 traffic will route. /127 gateway pings externally, but the next number assigned (the MX) does not. Spectrum support states that their edge equipment is not receiving a router advertisement from the MX. At first, they also said it wasn't passing the IPv6 link local traffic, but both my and their pcaps showed otherwise. Now it's the RA they say is not being passed. I'm annoyed to the point where I may just grab a generic small router and temporarily hook it up to see if is on Charter's side or our side. Anyone else ran in to this issue?

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 24 2022

@giovanitestoni wrote: I recommend you to request change subnet to /64. A national carrier isn't going to change the way they assign IPs for a one-off.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 23 2022

Yeah a /127 is like a P2P allocation which is weird. They gave me the gateway and I try to use the other IP in the /127 to assign to the MX, it shows connected but won't ping nor route traffic. I can't figure it out.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 23 2022

Has anyone configured Spectrum (legacy Charter) ipv6? They give you a /127 for your edge equipment and a routed /48. I can't get it working which may or may not be because of Charter not giving me the right settings. The ipv6 routing is awful too. Routes all over the place and Spectrum is lazy with their rdns on ipv6 routers, almost none are named.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 21 2022

@cmr That's good feedback. It would be quite nice to finally have a dual stack offering. Literally 1% of our guests would realize it - but we would know and be happier for it.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 20 2022

We have this issue as well, was blocking RDP traffic and DNS traffic. It flagged it as random things, like P2P. We had to disable most L7 rules for it to go away. Support recommended we upgrade to the latest firmware, but it had no notes about NBAR so we declined.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Jan 20 2022

No way we are running that bleeding edge of a firmware on our bigger networks, but we might test this at our corporate office. I would be very curious to see someone doing a large scale IPv6 deployment on a guest VLAN, with 1000+ clients to see how it goes.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Oct 14 2020

@cmr Same here. Or various IDFs we would like to monitor the environment on. I think it's the Bluetooth 5.0, I don't think the first gen MVs or the non WiFi 6 APs have it, I think they have 4.0. Curious what feature of Bluetooth 5.0 is required, whether its the extra speed (doubtful) or the extended range (more likely) ?

BHC_RESORTS · ‎May 7 2018

For the past 1-2 weeks, SME has not been working correctly across our entire organization. This includes multiple networks in geographical locations, different ISP uplinks, etc. Changelog confirms no major changes were made. Support says port 993 is being blocked, which is...silly business, at best. What doesn't work for us: Client list connectivity bar is blank, even though connected status is "Now". Doesn't seem to apply to iOS devices oddly enough. Drilling in to client details, information such as uptime and last user is correct. No live tools function. PS list, command line, network stats, remote desktop, etc. Client performance charts are unavailable. When trying to remote control, the error "timeout connecting to agent proxy" is displayed I finally was able to get support to do more than just blame a random port from being closed. Usually, support is pretty good, but in this instance it is quite lacking. We are on node 155. My armchair analysis? Something on the node is configured wrong for our organization. Years back we had a problem where we had more SME agents installed than licenses available, and we had similar odd results to this. Has anyone else experienced this issue? Remote control is one of the features we purchased SME for, and not having it is really impacting our business.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 6 2018

That's a pretty extreme solution! Indoor or outdoor camera? Any issues with the chemicals and the camera electronics or housing yet?

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Apr 5 2018

This one takes the cake for us! Back of a historical theater in San Luis Obispo, CA. Masonry for days and a 60+ foot drop below. Oddly enough, we don't have a scissor lift capable of going that high, so we did it from the roof. Talk about nerve racking. The Fremont Theater is Meraki powered, through and through! Who has mounted some cameras in crazy places besides us? We thought it would be easier to put this on after the mount. We were wrong. It looks so tiny from 10 feet away! And hilariously tiny from the street The long awaited view

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Mar 28 2018

Bummer. I had read some reports on Reddit of people being able to go slightly over it, 275ish, but a hard limit is no go. It's still 150 more than I have now, but...ohwell. Thanks for the replies.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Mar 28 2018

Circuits in our area on legacy Charter (Spectrum) are being increased to 300/20. Has anyone used an MX64 or 65 with that level or higher of a WAN circuit? I know it is "technically" rated for 250, and the slider bar under traffic shaping no longer supports unlimited and seems to be capped at 250. Has anyone though ever actually tested it to see just how much you can push through? Obviously, it is a caveat and not supported, but I'm just curious. Numbers like that tend to have a bit of leeway, usually in the 10-15% range. But if there is a HARD limit at 250, that is no good.

BHC_RESORTS · ‎Feb 21 2018

I (the CIO) came on-board BHC Resorts to revamp and overhaul everything. Last guy had a custom made firewall built on PFSense, which is a great product, but his GUI was riddled with security holes, didn't use TLS (or even SSL most of the time), most of the features didn't work, and was slower than the line speeds we had. And to top it off, take a look at the GUI homepage. Keep in mind the majority of the buttons on the left didn't work or 404'd. Terrible Custom Firewall No, I don't know why the Muppets Chef is there. Troubleshooting was literally, non-existent. There was no logging, no DHCP lease view, absolutely zero visibility in to the network. You could do basic port forwarding and that is about it. Fast forward to today: I mean, there isn't even a comparison, right? We can view analytics, troubleshooting ports, we have way more data than we use. And we love it!

About BHC_RESORTS

BHC_RESORTS

Community Record

Badges