I had an issue earlier this year where there was a bug with the modem that was not allowing VPN tunnels to be established. I went back and forth with the ISP for about a week before they finally were able to confirm it was a issue with their device. ... View more

Congrats to all the MOTMs and thanks for everyone who contributes on a daily basis.   Enjoy your vacation @CarolineS! ... View more

This is awesome!!! Thank you! ... View more

On the same boat. I received my confirmation email congratulating me on my new Switch, but alas no License Key. Like mentioned above, they'll probably get to us. ... View more

I'm in the back left corner by the door ... View more

And barely made it in time for orientation. Let's do this! ... View more

Woot! Headed to the airport now! See you there ... View more

Packing my bag tomorrow! Looking forward to seeing everyone there! @jdsilva, will you be at Orientation/tweet-up events on Sunday? ... View more

Hi @Adriano, A template for an MX64 would work on an MX64W. When going through the template setup, you will see that there are options for wireless settings. When applied, a template will apply those settings which pertain to that device. For instance, you can apply a Z1/Z3 to an MX64 template, but the device will not get Content Filtering settings because content filtering is not available on the device. Additionally, the Z1/Z3 will get the port settings for the first 4 ports in the MX template as the Z1/Z3 only has four usable ports.   Here's a link to further documentation: Managing Multiple Networks with Configuration Templates   Hope this helps! ... View more

Happy to be back and participating on the forums. Congrats to the other MOTMs and thanks to everyone who participates on the forums and helping the Meraki knowledge bank grow.    @CarolineS, it's getting a bit warm here.  My IT Director wants to know if you have anything to keep beverages frosty? ... View more

I just spent the last 30 minutes going thru this. I was able to recreate the error you showed. The error only occurred when trying to summarize the IPs in Group Policy using "Custom network firewall & shaping rules". I am unable to combine multiple IPs into the one rule and the error message you showed is generated. This happens regardless of firmware version.   When placed in Security Appliance > Configure > Firewall, the rule works without any issue. This leaves me to believe that it is a problem with group policy looking for only ONE IP when creating custom rules. Have you tried placing the rule in the Layer 3 section of the Security Appliance > Configure > Firewall page? This will apply to ALL groups on your MX unless you create a custom rule under group policy. If everyone is to be blocked from these IPs, my recommendation would be to place it there. ... View more

Just tried on 13.28 firmware (latest stable). Can confirm it works and not a new feature on 14.xx firmware. ... View more

@pwb, if you call support, they can move the MX64 into a new organization and retain all the current settings. ... View more

Works for me!  ... View more

I do like this idea. I've wondered if there was a way to reward our Solution experts. That being said, what's to stop me from marking my own post as a solutions and thus inflating my numbers. I saw a post a few weeks ago (I don't remember which) where one community member posted a solution to a problem only for the OP to post a thanks and mark their own post as solution. It's going to have to require a bit more on your part @CarolineS to make sure that marked solutions are legit when calculating totals.   I do like the idea of solutions being worth double though! I think a sound solution is worth more to the community. That being said, I'm ready to see @PhilipDAth hit over 200 in a month with a system like that! ... View more

Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but why wouldn't you want to monitor a device's application/internet usage? If you were to have a device on your network that was pulling all sorts of data yet you weren't tracking it, wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of the whole "know what your clients are doing on your network" aspect of Meraki? Personally, I think that if it were possible, some people would abuse the feature.... but that's just my .02 ISK ... View more

Using the email sign-ups go into my spam. This happens every time I sign up for a webinar. ... View more

You must give the Z3 is an IP address when you setup the vLAN on the device. As long as that vLAN is participating in Site-to-Site VPN and you are inside your network, you can navigate to the IP of the vLAN's MX IP in a web browser. This will allow you to access the local status page. ... View more

@Korey, RADIUS is the best solution for this situation that has never been questioned. It's the solution I pitched to my friend who inquired about client VPN as she is getting a MX from a webinar to play around with. The issue I'm seeing is that you have these two other options that have glaring holes in them. With Meraki Authentication I can totally block a user all day long but I cannot enforce strong passwords and thus introduce the possibility of a user having cat as their password. With AD authentication, the only way to totally block VPN access it to disable the AD account.   The prompt I'm trying to solve is the following: How can I block a user from VPN access while still allowing them to have domain access onsite? Again, RADIUS is the best solution. My "Let's make Meraki better" part of my brain wants to know how we can fix the other two Client VPN options. Meraki Authentication is easy: let me enforce strong password. But how do we fix AD authentication? ... View more

@PhilipDAth, I am aware of this work around as well. The problem is that this should be something I can do from the dashboard and not having to have a work around for. Also, from the local status page, I cannot change the vLAN of the port. Templates should have a little more flexibility to them. ... View more

@PhilipDAth, as I said in my post, I understand that I can use RADIUS. The focus of my post was more on the limitation of Meraki Authentication.   @EG-OST, we have a ticket in Meraki already about point #1. At this time, they told us this was a "feature request". Seems pretty straight forward of something that should've been included in the first place in my opinion. As for the second point, I guess my concern is more of how the block feature is presented during the whole Meraki sales pitch. "Look,  you can block this user this easily!". I understand how a user can get around the block.   Bottom line of my post: There's some flaws in the way things are being presented that should be addressed. I love Meraki and the product and just want to make it better. ... View more