@cantechit wrote: Subject says it all...  We need proper IPV6 support in the MX Platform...    Even IPV6 tunnelling doesn't work at this point.   Anyone else have soem comments? Can't agree enough. Specifically, on the WAN portion. ... View more

Not really an answer, but we have never had any luck with band steering. In particular, iOS devices fail to work more often than not on it. Personally, I'd recommend turning the band steering off. The AP steering makes a pretty good decision on which AP the client should connect to, and since it isn't a client decision, tends to be a little more stable. Also as an aside, the stable track 24* is pretty old. There are a lot of bug fixes in the beta track, on 25.5 now. ... View more

@MRCUR wrote: This is not currently supported on any Meraki product. You can submit a wish for it though.    Many people will take screenshots of the config pages as their backup strategy.  This is exactly what we do. High tech? Nope. Does it work? Absolutely! ... View more

I don't use the app very often, but I did just check on my iOS device and found the same thing. App version is 2.3.9-2-gc9abd05d and iOS version is 10.3.3 on an iPhone 6s.   It's worth noting once I do select an AP, the live data seems to be correct. ... View more

@Slider wrote: I have a warehouse with 50k open floor, can I apply MR74 as mesh as there a lack of ether cables. Two most for gateways and others repeaters. I am adding about 12 MR74's with patch and Omni  Is it really cost prohibitive in your environment to add Ethernet? Direct wiring is always preferred over mesh. Meshing takes up a LOT of airtime, and significantly reduces your available throughput.    Highly recommend running Ethernet directly to the APs for best performance and a long term investment! ... View more

@MRCUR wrote: There's probably some awful peering between AT&T and Comcast along the way that's causing the very slow upload.  Bad peering on either ATT or Comcast? Say it isn't so! /s   All joking aside, we're actually quite pleased with the ATT fiber. It routes well internationally as well normally, and has been stable as a rock. Plus they gave us a ridiculous amount of IPv4, and a monstrosity of a Cisco ISR for an Ethernet handoff.  ... View more

@MRCUR wrote: I have two MX600's in production in warm spare mode. These are used for firewall/NAT for ~20,000 users/10,000 devices. In total the upstream bandwidth is 4Gbps. We also do two site-to-site VPN tunnels, one is Meraki and the other is an ASA. Plenty of client VPN connections too without and problems.    If you want to do a real world speedtest through my MXen, here you go: readingsd.speedtest.net Just for fun, I tried it. From my corporate office, 100/100 fiber via Spectrum and an MX84: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6561802911 From one of my sites, 150/150 fiber via ATT and an MX100: http://beta.speedtest.net/result/6561806710 (weird low upload...doing to a server in California almost maxes it out)   ... View more

@NFL0NR wrote: Ip of the cable modem. Weird, is it doing some kind of NAT? Straight bridged mode should have the real WAN IP show up. Haven't seen that one before, except with a stupid ATT Uverse gateway that had 0 support for bridged mode - had to do a weird DMZ thing. Luckily, replaced it with a real connection. ... View more

@NFL0NR wrote: To Kinda piggy back on the previous Packet Loss post...  check out this image.. notice the steady ~ 1% packet loss..   The drop off and reduction is only due to rebooting the MX device.   Now I know it's not a huge deal to reboot them, but we shouldn't have to...    What's that WAN connection? Site to site VPN? ... View more

@NFL0NR wrote: We have the 600,  we had the 400 as a warm spare and I think the 600 was marginally faster, but not a night and day difference no. We've since upgraded to another 600 as a warm spare.   I think the biggest difference to us was VPN Users said the 600 was faster than the 400 when we tested. I was always curious what the difference in CPU was from the 400 to 600, or if they were arbitrary limits.  From a glance I always thought the main difference was the 4x1tb HDDs, which, in this day of dynamic web content, isn't real useful. ... View more

@MerakiJockey505 wrote: Is the CMNA a pre-requisite? After reading about the program and the perks of the coveted Meraki Masters training, how could you not want to get in on that? How does one go about earning an invitation? It would be pretty sweet to have some troubleshooting questions put up in this community by the Meraki staff in a "contest" fashion with the prize being an invitation to training. Thoughts? I also asked both my rep and someone fairly high up in the marketing department. Apparently the masters program is only for the top partners, and not for end users/end-clients.   I really wanted to attend it as well, as the CMNO was pretty basic, and I was looking for something much more challenging and in-depth to really solidify my understanding of Meraki. ... View more

@Mr_IT_Guy wrote: @NFL0NR, don't you think we should also be eligible for the polo 😄 I think I had to buy about $250k worth of equipment before I got mine! ... View more

Firmware updates are the only thing that somewhat scares me on Meraki products. Not having your trusty serial connection to xmodem over an update in case it didn't work...99% of the time, they go smoothly, but when they don't... ... View more

@MikeStacks wrote: I have a customer that does trade shows internationally and was looking at Meraki as the infrastructure to support their mobile networks.  They would purchase all the gear from US Headquarters, but then deploy it in Jordan, Germany, UK, Columbia, etc.  Does Meraki provide a list of all the countries that they're approved or supported to work in? Take a look at the datasheet for the model you are looking for. Here is an example of an MR53 for regulatory approvals on the radios:   FCC Part 15C, 15E RSS-247 (Canada) EN 300 328, EN 301 893 (Europe) AS/NZS 4268 (Australia/NZ) NOM-121 (Mexico) NCC LP0002 (Taiwan) It says to contact sales for other regulatory info. Jordan may be tough, aren't there export restrictions to Jordan? In any event, support should be able to let you know any particular country if it isn't one of the main ones in the EU, LATAM, or Asia. ... View more

Strange. Well, the beta firmware is 9.26, and while it isn't always a great idea to run beta in a production environment...the stable track is pretty far behind at this point, so I'd weigh your options. I skimmed through the release notes, and I didn't see this specific issue mentioned, but there are a TON of stability and bug fixes, so you never know. We run two MS2208p, and are on 9.26 with no issues yet. Small sample size, I know. ... View more

@bholmes12 wrote: I have 3 MS350 stacks, 6 switches in each stack, running on 8.10 software.    All stacks have been up and running without issue for the past month or so. No changes have been made on the Meraki switches or the Cisco Nexus 9k's that are upstream.    This morning within an hour all 3 stacks had switches that removed themselves from the stack and stopped forwarding traffic.    Stack 1 - 1 switch disappeared from the stack and stopped forwarding traffic - Did not come online until after a reboot. Uplink port was not on this switch.    Stack 2 - 1 switch disappeared from the stack and stopped forwarding traffic - Did not come online until after a reboot. Uplink port was not on this switch.    Stack 3 - 5 of the switches disappeared from the stack - 1 of the uplinks was on one of the switches that disappeared from the stack. After rebooting the switch with the uplink the 5 switches rejoined the stack. 1 switch in this stack stayed online, that switch has an uplink to the core.    It seems really strange that 3 stacks had the same issue within an hour, Meraki support suggested we hit a bug (8.10) and have requested I upgrade to 9.19.    Has anyone else been having stacking issues?    I typically put in Cisco 4500's or 3850's and these are my first 3 MS350 stack closets. This obviously isn't giving me a very warm and fuzzy feeling to have a failure like this after a month or so.    Curious what other users experiences  have been when using MS350 stacks ??? The MS line is the one product we don't run in our environments, so my advice is more theoretical than practical I'm afraid.   Did the logs show anything interesting regarding the stacking? Also to be clear, we are talking about physical stacking here, not virtual stacking, correct?   Normally I would blame the upstream Nexus 9ks, as those have more bugs than a Brazilian jungle, but since some of the stacks don't uplink to it, i'm not so sure. ... View more

@TheMerakiGuy wrote: Meraki uses LLDP for automatic discovery of connected devices.   https://documentation.meraki.com/zGeneral_Administration/Other_Topics/LLDP_Support_on_Cisco_Meraki_Products   LLDP is enabled by default on all Meraki devices with varying degrees of support.  Keep in mind that if you are not a full stack customer you will likely have to enable and or configure LLDP your other network devices.   Note you can always suggest a new device type to Meraki if you find that the automatic discovery is incorrect. Select the client in question under Network-wide > Clients    Click on the gray flag to the right of the existing device type Enter the correct device type and click "Save"   This will not update the device type in your dashboard immediately but I have had success using this feature in the past.     Providing accurate feedback to Meraki should help them to identify and resolve any potential problems. I'm pretty sure it uses more than LLDP for device identification. The majority of connected devices do not support LLDP, which is more designed for network infrastructure hardware. My guess would be it uses a combination of LLDP, SNMP, WMI, and MAC vendor lookup.   Flagging the device type as inaccurate has never resulted in any changes for me. We have like 100 Vizio smart TVs that show up as Axis cameras, and I've flagged a ton of them. Since they all have the same MAC Vendor OUI, it should be a pretty easy fix. For this example, looking up the MAC returns "Vizio, INC". Sure, it doesn't identify it as a TV, but at least it gets the right manufacturer. ... View more

@MRCUR wrote: @Mr_IT_Guy Along the same lines - iperf built into the MXen would be really useful, especially since Support sometimes requests iperf tests to be run.  This. I would LOVE this. ... View more

@CapitolG wrote: Cable test on the AP's If you are using the MS line, you can do this. A lot of other non Meraki switches also have built in cable testing. Usually cable testing (from what I've seen) originates on the switch, and is device/endpoint agnostic. ... View more

@Mr_IT_Guy wrote: @CarolineS does Meraki have any plans for CMNOs to eventually be allowed to become CMNA or a Master? I too have asked about this, with some of the Meraki marketing management. But the more Meraki employees we pester about it, the better. Judging from some of the deployments I've seen mentioned here, a lot of the "end-users" likely make much more significant purchases than some of the partners who may just be resellers or VARs. It would be nice to be recognized as well with advanced training opportunities. ... View more

@george26 wrote: Would anyone use a z1 on a connection serving guest wifi for 10-15 users?  2 options for internet speeds are 16/3 or 50/10, which customer will probably go with the lesser. The Z1 is designed as a telecommuter device. Consequently, it has a much lower CPU than the normal MX line. It also doesn't have a lot of the more advanced features that the MX line has.   16/3 is pretty rough for even 1 user. What is the purpose of the guest WiFi? If it is just in a bar or restaurant or something, it is likely people won't use it much for things other than checking in to Facebook or looking at directions. If it is in an environment like a hotel or something else where people are going to be for a while, that won't do.   Traffic shaping isn't really granular on the Z1. I'd recommend an MX64 plus an AP. The MX64W or the MX65W isn't as robust on the WiFi. Remember, MX64s and an AP (model varies now I hear) are available via webinars for qualified attendees. I'd check that out! ... View more

@MerakiJockey505 wrote: Hello palmtree,   I had this same issue previously with a few different solutions.  At one site we added a few new AP's to an existing network stocked with MR34's.  The new AP's were MR42's.  We experienced much lower connection success as well as load balancing issues.  One of the easiest steps we tried was to make sure they all had up-to-date firmware.  That fixed the issue temporarily.  Secondly, we rebooted all of the AP's to enable the load balancing to reconfigure.  That also fixed the issues for a while.  We ended up having to change our default Radio Settings to allow either just 2.4 GHz connection with 20 MHz C-Width of just 5 GHz with 80 MHz C-width.  That seems to give us the highest success rate.  We did have a few issues after but nothing as widespread.  Also another thing we tried was removing the Ap's from the network and adding them back.. It seems to be strange solution but it has worked on more than one occasion. Wait, do you have the 5ghz band set to 80mhz? I'm curious how that works in dense environments. We run 40mhz max. 80mhz tends to be too noisy for our environments. ... View more