Indeed looks more like a Nexus series and nowhere near a Meraki device. fyi, nexus 3524-X and 3548-X is the same 48 port switch hardware but just with only 24 ports enabled ( by license) in the 3524-X model. ... View more

First try to solve your STP issue and/or check if the active uplink port has alle the vlans it needs so the switch can reach it's normal management vlan. ... View more

There is no such thing as to much meraki socks 😉 But i think it will be better to try and score some at CL. ... View more

More people from the community there? ... View more

When it's coming up at 100 half, the other side is set at fixed 100 full. you have 2 options, setting the mx84 wan to 100 fixed or ask your isp to set their port to auto. Sounds weird but this is by design of the 100mbit standard. ... View more

Now i'm getting curious...... 😄 Some special stuff there? I'll take my Meraki socks to Barcelona 😄 ... View more

I'm lucky I already gathered 4 pares of socks 😄 Also have the nice meraki phone charging cable.   A mug would also be seriously cool.   But, maybe an idea... is Meraki Swag available at Cisco Live EMEA in Barcelona in a few weeks? ... View more

I think the TS means, multiple subnets in the same vlan. ... View more

Keep in mind that all switches in a stack will be updated at the same time. ... View more

I had an interesting chat with a cisco tech last wednesday over this one.   Meraki ( and cisco) couldn't do this before because the hardware wasn't powerfull enough. The Catalyst 9300 has some new kind of powerfull silicon ( asic) what can do this. And again it's more dynamic configurable by software.   in Cisco world its called SDA ( Software defined access) so why wouldn't meraki use the same ( very good) hardware for their new layer3 switch?   The stackpower and seperate modules for uplinks in the Catalyst series are just great, something meraki really missed. On the other side... standarisation in hardware between cisco and meraki coud drop the price ( or make cisco more profit 😉 ) ... View more

10Gbit wireless... yes please, count me in 😄 ... View more

Check the Catalyst 3850 or 9300 modules 😉   MS390 = Cat9300 😉 ... View more

goodluck with your new project 😉 ... View more

Renumber to 10.x.x.x /16 ranges 😉    Use the second octet for assinging the "location" As example 10.10.x.x/16 for the home and 10.20.x.x/16 for the garden office.   That way you can use the same vlan's on both sides with just a different second octet. Combining the 3rd octet with the vlan is smart, give you easy overview but using it with the 192.168 prefix limits your options when you want to expand.   This way i'm doing the designs of greenfield or renumbering setups to keep it flexible in the future. ... View more

Maybe i've missed it... but do you have a MX on both sides or a MX and somtheing different? ... View more

Normally (non meraki firewalls) you would use nat for that... Hiding one of the 2 subnets behind a full nat.   But i'm not sure a mx can do that.     ... View more

You're completely right. it's a little different mindset. but making 2 networks just for a storage network sound just dull 😉 problems do arise when you have a predecessor who had the great idea of getting 3 ms350's in a stack, using them as collapsed core, connecting servers and running storage over it. Just because the pre-sales guy at the time did think running on 3 instead off 5 switches was a lot cheaper. He had no idea of a descent network design 😉 We've learned from that and now are using nexus 3k's for storage networks. I just wanted to point out, you not only have to think about network design, but also the setup in the meraki portal like you said. ... View more

We've got several customers switched to Meraki from conventional Cisco.   One thing to keep in mind is iscsi storage traffic over meraki switches. I would strongly advise not to use meraki for them but use catalyst or even nexus. Besides buffering and latancies the problem is with updating the networks, you jst must sometime. This wil result in a maintenance window (yes even though your network design is good, you dont want to take any risks) Luckily this became a bit better with the staged updates.   In a conventional setup, those switches don't even have internet connection and are managed oob. Just can't do that with meraki. ... View more

I would make a plan myself. My experience is that auto channeling (at any vendor) gives problems. Fixed channels and powersettings because dynamic can cause strange behaviour like you have. ... View more

I know what you mean.. But at 99% of our customers the same external ip adress is used on both firewall when doing a fail-over because they have incoming NAT rules otherwise your external ip will change in case of a fail-over. In some cases (with only outgoing traffic) this indeed isn't necessary. ... View more

We had something similar at a customer. Can you check your MTU size. We had fragmenting issues when sending over the hash so it became corrupted and denied by the nps server.   ps. what do you see in the meraki logging regarding radius requests? ... View more

i would advice to set up a full warm spare setup with both internet connections at both mx's but keep in mind this wil cost you 2 extra ip's per wan connection. Both mx's need a wan ip for connecting to the cloud and you need one ip you can use as wan ip that can be moved between the 2 mx's ... View more