As @GIdenJoe said, unless you're planning to purchase some additional firewalls and perform a redesign, you would place your MX into site C. There it would join the existing MX in a HA pair, thereby providing device level redundancy. ... View more

--Edited with additional information -- Yes, with an MX device, you can set an alert for this under Network Wide -> Configure -> Alerts Then check the box for " Clients connect or disconnect from the LAN" and select the client to track. Another solution to achieve this would be either to use the API to poll clients, or to use a syslog server to receive syslogs and send automated alerts on client connection/disconnections.   This previous thread is quite similar: https://community.meraki.com/t5/Developers-APIs/Alerting-a-client-association-to-network-Webhooks/m-p/100212#M4048 ... View more

If I understand the question correctly, you're thinking about using wall mounted switches to connect between devices and your attic switch in order to run less individual cables?   This really comes down t your design and what is important for managing the network and your end devices. Having wall mounted switches in between your end devices and your 'core' attic switch will save on cabling costs, but will limit you in terms of: Additional points of failure More devices to manage (Slightly) increased latency Decreased dedicated bandwidth for end devices as the traffic is aggregated on uplink to the attic switch   You'll also lose some visibility and control on the Meraki side as you'll have multiple devices coming in on a given port. ... View more

Congratulations everyone and especially @rhbirkelund! Thanks @MeredithW for another great contest. ... View more

When looking at the route table, you should see the spinning status briefly for S2S vpn routes, but they should resolve to green, grey or red. From what I've seen in other threads and elsewhere online it may just be a dashboard issue. Are those routes actually working for network traffic at the moment? If so, it's probably worthwhile opening a case for support to look into the dashboard. Also worthwhile trying to access the page from different browser and different PC. ... View more

From what I can see, this is a windows error which can occur for a number of different reasons. Can you provide more information about the devices getting the error and your network? ... View more

Correct. The direct link shouldn't really be required as the heartbeats will propagate on all vlans. In fact it can even limit the effectiveness of your fail over. ... View more

Congratulations everyone! And well done @MerryAki and @PaulF . Keep up the quality posts! ... View more

Changing the IP on the dashboard should push the change to the switch, assuming the switch is reachable at the time. If the switch cannot reach the Meraki cloud, it will take the updated configuration the next time it can connect.   You can always check and change the IP address of the device from its local status page. https://documentation.meraki.com/MS/Other_Topics/Assigning_a_Static_IP_Address ... View more

If there was an issue with the upstream connectivity tests (eg. ISP not replying to ARP's), it's feasible that it would impact both. But if this were the case I'd expect alerts to show on the dashboard.   A couple of other things: - Is WAN1 on the MX running at the expected speed and duplex? - Are devices connecting behind the MX seeing high latency and packet loss, or is it  just the graphs on the dashboard? ... View more

Are you seeing alerts on the dashboard for the MX regarding DNS mis-configuration or disconnection to the cloud server? Sounds like it could be a failure of one of the Meraki upstream connectivity tests. - h ttps://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Firewall_and_Traffic_Shaping/Connection_Monitoring_for_WAN_Failover#Connectivity_Tests   Not sure if it's entirely helpful but I once hit an issue with my ISP connection which would only manifest on my MX. Packet captures indicated that the upstream was not returning the Meraki's ARP request for the default gateway and therefore it failed the WAN connectivity test. With this issue, I was seeing high packet loss reported in the dashboard When swapping the MX for a computer or other 'dumb' router, I saw no issues.   From memory, mine was either an ISP end issue, or a factory reset on the modem sorted the issue. ... View more

As @cmr said, I've also never seen a rogue AP triangulated on a heat map. I don't think this feature exists. ... View more

It should be possible. https://support.apple.com/en-au/guide/deployment/depabc994b84/web   Are you doing user or system auth via group policy? What do you see in the radius logging when the Mac attempts to connect? ... View more

@ww  Beat me to it 😉   Exactly as said above, hub-spoke is the best design for what you're looking to achieve. For rules, depending on what you want to send over the site-to-site vpn, it may be easier to add allow rules and an explicit deny any any rule at the end. ... View more

As WW said, the error indicates that the IP address you're using for the gateway is actually the network address (the first address in the subnet). This is always a reserved and non-assignable IP address.   A good way to verify this is by using a subnet calculator: IP Subnet Calculator ... View more

Congratulations everyone! 😃 ... View more

That makes sense why it would never fail the ARP test as your ADSL Modem/Router is still online. You should be able to achieve the desired result by putting the ADSL router into bridge mode and connecting the MX to it. You may have to look at the specific way to configure it on your router but the end result should be that the MX receives the public IP address and acts as your gateway router. Therefore when there's a failure anywhere upstream of the MX (whether it be the cable or the ADSL router in bridge mode), it should fail the ARP test and perform a failover to the secondary uplink. ... View more

There's really no way you can forward the same port to 2 different destinations, as there's no identifier to know where to send the traffic. If inbound traffic is supposed to be split between the 2 destinations (eg. on a round robin basis), you'll need to put a load balancer in front to redirect traffic accordingly.  Otherwise, if they are separate applications that just happen to have an overlap, you'll need to move one of the applications to a different port. ... View more

It sounds like the MX isn't failing over as one of the connectivity tests (most likely ARP for the gateway) is still available. Is the MX receiving a public IP for it's WAN uplink, or a private IP behind the ADSL router? ... View more

I believe that's expected behaviour. You can't forward ports with a destination that is not a local subnet on the MX ... View more

For a home environment, I would say a lot of this comes down to personal preference and features. All of those options would be perfectly suitable for a basic home deployment, it just depends how fancy you want to get and how resilient you expect the equipment to be. For the record I'm running a Meraki full stack at home and have had no issues. ... View more

A few points of confusion here. The Merak MX67W doesn't have an internal cellular modem, so it makes sense that an external cellular modem would be required between the antenna and the MX.   The MX67C does have an internal cellular modem, however external antenna are only supported on the RP-SMA connector, not directly over RJ-45. Also, only the Meraki external antenna (MA-ANT-MX) are officially supported. MX67 datasheet for reference: MX67 and MX68 Datasheet - Cisco Meraki ... View more