Never had a problem labelling APs. Mostly it’s been with Dymo labels, but I’d imagine anything should work. The only thing I’d consider is not making it permanent, so that if you do need to RMA an AP you can peel the sticker off and send back a clean AP. ... View more

If you’re talking 100m of clear space (I.e. nothing in the Fresnel Zone) then you will most likely get a Mesh connection using the MR74 and MA-ANT-20. How good the actual signal strength is, and so what speed you get will be very dependent on the obstructions.  If you’re talking about a client being able to connect to a MR74 with MA-ANT-20 will mostly depend on the client. Clients generally have a lower TX power than the access point, and will vary that TX power depending on power state (e.g. battery charge, external power, screen being locked). Again, theoretically, you should be able to connect a client at 100m, but it’s going to depend on the environment and the client, and it’s unlikely you’ll get close to the maximum throughput the MR74 is capable of. ... View more

At first glance it looks like it should work (I.e. purely from the capability of the access points, antennas and the distances involved). My main concern would the obstructions to the RF signals, all the trees and other vegetation, as well as structures that are in the sites - they will all impact the wireless mesh and the connection to the client devices.   You should also remember that when using wireless mesh, for every hop from the gateay (I.e the wired access point) you will essentially be halving the uplink speed. With this in mind you may want to see if you can get more access points hardwired.   I would strongly recommend two things: find a local Meraki partner who can help you with site surveys to ensure you get the performance and coverage you are hoping for, and get some Meraki kit as a trial to see how it performs in real life. As I said, it looks like it should be fine, but you really won’t know until you get kit on the ground and test it. ... View more

Maybe firewall rules on the server that is hosting the shared folder? If you’re coming in from an ‘unknown’ IP address range then it might be applying different rules. (Although I’m surprised you still get an authentication prompt, but I thought I’d put it out there anyway). ... View more

The information provided by everyone else is all relevant and worth understanding. A couple of points to add...   The third party site-to-site configuration is organisation-wide, so when you add the new MX it will try and build a VPN to Azure (unless you stop it with tags). So you’ll just need to configure the Azure end for the new site. Why do you want to stop traffic directly between the sites over VPN? Using the VPN firewall rules, will stop this traffic, but it will stop all communications between the sites - it won’t force it through the Azure site or anything ‘clever’ like that. ... View more

@PhilipDAth is correct in what he states. Connect one antenna to both the 2.4GHz ports and the other antenna to both the 5GHz ports. The H and V on the antenna are the polarisation of the elements in the antenna, ‘horizontal’ and ‘vertical’, you need one of each in each band for things to work as expected. ... View more

If your access point is coming online as a repeater then it’s most likely it can’t get an IP address via DHCP on the Ethernet connection. So check to make sure the cables are good, and that your subnet/VLAN and DHCP are correctly configured (and that there are spare DHCP addresses available). I don’t believe configuring a static IP address will work if the access point is running as a repeater. ... View more

It is a little bit complicated 😀, and I can’t see why it should be.   There are a couple of things to consider... The MS can really only have one default route (i.e.0.0.0.0/0) so all internet traffic from the MS will be sent the same way, either to the MX or your ME service - there isn’t really an option for using one as the backup to the other from the MS210 as the routing is static. Why not connect the ME router directly to the MX WAN2 (i.e. not via the MS) and disable load balancing. With WAN1 configured as the primary, internet traffic should go out WAN1, unless it fails in which case it will go via WAN2 to your ME service. Your Flow Preference will ensure that all ‘internal WAN’ traffic uses WAN2 (unless it fails) - although note that it will be NATed to the WAN2 IP address. Note that you may be limited by the throughput of the MX. Have a single link between the MX and MS, connected to one of the MX LAN ports. This will have two VLANs on it. I’d have the native VLAN as your management VLAN, and a tagged VLAN as a transit VLAN between the MS and MX for all non-management traffic. Keep all the management interfaces, MS and MR, on this management VLAN (will mean you probably need to switch the MRs to use bridge mode and assign a VLAN tag to all traffic from the SSID). Hope these, along with everyone else’s suggestions may help. ... View more

What client are you using to test the wireless? If the client is only a single spatial stream (or if it only connects using a single stream), then 45Mbps is pretty much all you’d expect if you’ve only got 20MHz channel width. ... View more

You’re correct in that the Cisco Viptela Cloud On-ramp solution allows the SD-WAN system as a whole to determine the best path to send traffic to reach an internet destination. That may be via a local direct internet access, or over a WAN link to a hub site and out via that internet circuit. This uses a combination of monitoring the SD-WAN itself as well a monitoring the TCP flows on the internet circuit, and likely soon potentially using Thousand Eyes technology too.   Meraki does some of this already. As you’ve noted it uses probes over SD-WAN, and coincidentally if you purchase the SD-WAN Plus license for an MX you also get the Meraki Insight license for the MX too. Meraki Insight provides monitoring of cloud traffic through TCP flows - a lot like the Cloud On-Ramp with Cisco Viptela. What it doesn’t have is the smarts to tie all this together and make ‘intelligent’ decisions about how to route internet/IaaS/SaaS traffic.   If I were to be a betting man (which generally I’m not) I’d be putting money on Meraki tying all this together to provide a better IaaS/SaaS solution with its SD-WAN solution, along the lines of the Cisco Viptela Cloud On-Ramp - but that is pure speculation. I also seem to remember that type of functionality being mentioned as a long-term goal for the MX when the SD-WAN Plus license was launched. Maybe we’ll see more once MX16 code comes to public beta.... ... View more

As Brandon stated one of the biggest issues you’ll be suffering from is the reduction in available bandwidth as you traverse each repeater. If you haven’t already seen the Meraki mesh document, https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Wireless_Mesh_Networking then it’s worth a quick read. The more gateways (i.e. wired access points) you can establish the better.   It’s probably worth also understanding the absolute maximum throughput put you’re likely to achieve. The MR66 is an 802.11n access point with dual 2x2 radios, each supporting two spatial streams. Although the data sheet states up to 600 Mbps this is highly unrealistic. Although 802.11n supported 40Mhz channels on the 2.4GHz spectrum they’re barely used and the later standards have deprecated this, thus your 2.4GHz will provide a PHY rate of about 72Mbps tops. On the 5GHz channel you might get a 300Mbps PHY rate if all the stars align - good signal strength, 40MHz channel, two spatial streams.   But these are PHY rates, the raw communication speed between the wireless access devices. The actual throughput of data on these will be anywhere between about 50% to 70% of this. So this is likely to be about 45Mbps on 2.4GHz, or 180Mbps on 5GHz - this is about 60%, with everything working wonderfully on a gateway/wired AP.   Take these bandwidths, spread them across all the devices trying to connect in the RV park (since wireless is a shared medium) and allow for the 50% bandwidth loss as you traverse repeaters, and you soon get to small bandwidths.   So what could you look at doing? You could make sure you’re achieving the best link speeds between the access points. With the APs you have this could be through 5GHz sector antennas pointing back to the gateway (check the link speeds between the APs in the mesh) - although that would then mean you’re looking to push people onto the 2.4GHz spectrum for connectivity. You could look at replacing the APs with more modern devices which provider greater throughput (you can use the same licenses, these are the same across the entire MR range). But ultimately the biggest improvement will be if you can get more of the APs wired in rather than using mesh.   Hope this is of some help, and good luck.   Edit: on re-reading this I may have been a bit unfairly harsh on 2.4Ghz. Technically with two spatial streams you could achieve 144Mbps PHY on a 20MHz channel, so a throughput around 85Mbps. But that said, I doubt you’d get a good two spatial stream connection on 2x2 under 802.11n. ... View more

You need a slight change to your allow rule... To allow your mail server outbound access you need the ‘mail server’ IP address in the source IP address for the allow rule, the source port is any, the destination IP address is any, and the destination port is 25. Your mail server will likely use a ‘random’ outbound/source port, but always its own IP address, the destination will always be ‘any’ (because you don’t know what it’s connecting to), and the destination port will always be TCP port 25, since that’s the well known port that SMTP listens on.   Thats should get you working. ... View more

Out-of-the-box the MX will generally use MAC addresses to track clients, so if your Netgear router is doing any Layer 3 then these will all be lost when the traffic is ‘routed’, and you’ll just end up with the MAC address of the Netgear. So long as there is no NAT on the Netgear then you could switch to using IP address to track clients, but this has its limitations too (e.g. if the IP address changes).   What you may want to try and do - although I’m not sure if you can - is try and turn the Netgear into just a switch, so all your VLANs are created, and routed only on the MX, that may get you the visibility you are looking for. ... View more

Great job all. With the holiday season over I guess it’s back to some sort of normality. @DarrenOC thoughts are with you, you guys will get through it. ... View more

Is the MR84 a repeater to a gateway MR? If so then what you describe is pretty much the same as my description. The PoE injector is powering the AP, but since the AP can’t get DHCP address from the PC (assuming it’s a reasonably standard config. on the PC) it will switch to repeater mode and try and find a gateway (or another repeater) and Mesh with it. The configuration in the Dashboard (Network-wide -> Configuration -> General -> Clients wired directly to Meraki APs) specifies which SSID the Ethernet port on the MR84 emulates.   Note that the MR84 needs two antennas, one connecting to the top two RF connectors, one connecting to the bottom two RF connectors, they should be the same antennas and covering the same area since all the ports are dual band and the radios are both 4x4:4. ... View more

I have a simple Mesh setup and it works fine. It’s an MR33 repeater Meshed back to a MR42 gateway. Have a PC directly connected to the wired port on the MR33 as well as other wireless devices also connecting to the MR33 and it all works fine, no problems.   If you’re adding to an existing network just be aware of the halving of the uplink bandwidth towards the gateway for every hop that you make. Also have a look at this document for supported configs: https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Extending_the_LAN_with_a_Wireless_Mesh_Link ... View more

You mention that you tested with another MX NATed behind another device. Is that other device also a Fortigate firewall? It’s possible that the Fortigate is detecting the L2TP/IPSec and trying to be ‘smart’ with its NAT and actually introducing a problem. I would see if there is ‘smart’/application processing on the Fortigate that you can turn-off and just let NAT be NAT. ... View more

As Philip stated there is not an endpoint to get the same information that is available for the MS. The closest you can get on the MX is the /networks/{networkId}/appliance/ports endpoint, but this doesn’t provide interface bandwidth/duplex configuration.   (Since you have to use the local status page to get the bandwidth/duplex on a MX and it can’t be changed through the Dashboard, I wonder if this is a shortcoming of the Current MX firmware?)   EDIT: Be aware that the capabilities of a MX switch port are far less than those of a MS switch port. ... View more

Welcome to the community. There’s many people who could offer advice on third party VPNS to/from a MX appliance. If you post in the Security/SD-WAN topic about what you’re trying to achieve and what you’re experiencing I’m sure you’ll get some responses.   Depending how far you’ve got with your troubleshooting this document might be of assistance https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Site-to-site_VPN/Troubleshooting_Non-Meraki_Site-to-site_VPN_Peers   ... View more

Also worth considering is that so far as I'm aware the USA is the only jurisdiction that has so far approved the use of the new spectrum required for 6E. And, yes, I'll admit that this is one big market but the rest of the world is bigger. It may be that some manufacturers wait a while to see what other jurisdictions do to ensure there is some consistency before they make big investments. ... View more

@RouterGuy I just used the API without a query string. https://api.meraki.com/api/v1/networks/L_602356450160806666/wireless/clientCountHistory And got the following results. [ { "startTs": "2020-12-16T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-17T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 23 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-17T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-18T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 22 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-18T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-19T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 24 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-19T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-20T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 24 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-20T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-21T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 23 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-21T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-22T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 24 }, { "startTs": "2020-12-22T00:00:00Z", "endTs": "2020-12-23T00:00:00Z", "clientCount": 22 } ] ... View more