Yes, the MSP proposed a design that causes problems firmware updates are applied to a single Meraki switch stack serving an ESXi cluster.    So you need to buy 1-2 switches for ESXi or re-architect the virtualization solution. ... View more

And maybe links to relevant KBs. ... View more

And see this excellent blog post from @KarstenI: https://cyber-fi.net/index.php/2022/03/13/how-to-connect-the-meraki-mx-to-ms-switches/ ... View more

I know that at least as of a few months ago there was official Meraki documentation in a single page on expected failure times for different Meraki devices, although this may have just been switches. But, I can't seem to find this so I suspect that it has been silently removed. I'd prefer to be wrong about it being removed. ... View more

What switch are you connecting the MS250-24? As long is it also supports it, that will work. A better solution for shorter cables is passive twinax, which is supported by Meraki (at least if purchased from Meraki). Again, either option will work as long as the cables/transceivers are compatible with both switches. Somewhat related to this, there's a Meraki compatible module, the MA-SFP-10GB-LRM, which is specifically designed for short runs. And it can also operate with single mode fiber or multimode fiber. ... View more

Thank you for the update on this. ... View more

They both support POE+ and UPOE (depending on the switch model). And they both support Ethernet and trunk ports. So yes they're compatible.   Whether or not they integrate with the existing network configuration is a question that is best posed to a consultant who can better understand your needs. ... View more

I read through the thread on https://community.cisco.com/ including the diagrams.   This really doesn't strike me as a Meraki-specific question, at least how it is posed. This also obviously a unique configuration.   But I can ask a few questions and maybe provide some guidance as someone who doesn't speak French:   -Why is there only port connected to the PABX in the diagrams? Is the PABX configured as a one-armed router? I would expect that almost all PABX devices would be configured to have separate WAN and LAN ports if there are internal devices connected to them via softphone.   -Have you implemented or seen a similar type of integration before that allows a client with a softphone to access a VPN connection and the unnamed PBX appliance?   -Have you tested connecting your PABX appliance to the voice port of the livebox through a device that does NAT (as I'm assuming that the MX is NAT mode)?   -On the other hand, have you tested connecting the PABX directly to the MX, or another router performing NAT, and then testing if devices connected to the MX can use the softphone?   -Have you considered trying to emulate the MPLS Connection approach suggested by Meraki for reaching internal resources? This seems like this could be the simplest approach as it also wouldn't require adding an additional layer of NAT for connections to the PABX. But this is also dependent on understanding how the PABX communicates to softphone clients and how it can be configured. https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Networks_and_Routing/Integrating_an_MPLS_Connection_on_the_MX_LAN   -Do you have a layer 3 switch to test with? In that case, you could avoid adding any layers of NAT and test without the MX to determine if this is  an MX-specifc incompatibility. ----------- From: https://translate.google.com/ J'ai lu le fil de discussion sur https://community.cisco.com/, y compris les diagrammes.   Cela ne me semble vraiment pas être une question spécifique à Meraki, du moins comment elle est posée. C’est aussi évidemment une configuration unique.   Mais je peux poser quelques questions et peut-être donner quelques conseils en tant que personne qui ne parle pas français :   -Pourquoi n'y a-t-il qu'un port connecté au PABX dans les schémas ? Le PABX est-il configuré comme un routeur manchot ? Je m'attendrais à ce que presque tous les appareils PABX soient configurés pour avoir des ports WAN et LAN séparés si des appareils internes y sont connectés via un softphone.   -Avez-vous déjà implémenté ou vu un type d'intégration similaire permettant à un client doté d'un softphone d'accéder à une connexion VPN et à l'appareil PBX sans nom ?   -Avez-vous testé la connexion de votre appareil PABX au port vocal de la livebox via un appareil qui fait du NAT (car je suppose que le MX est en mode NAT) ?   -D'un autre côté, avez-vous testé la connexion du PABX directement au MX, ou à un autre routeur effectuant du NAT, puis testé si les appareils connectés au MX peuvent utiliser le softphone ?   -Avez-vous envisagé d'essayer d'imiter l'approche MPLS Connection suggérée par Meraki pour accéder aux ressources internes ? Il semble que cela pourrait être l'approche la plus simple car elle ne nécessiterait pas non plus l'ajout d'une couche supplémentaire de NAT pour les connexions au PABX. Mais cela dépend également de la compréhension de la manière dont le PABX communique avec les clients de téléphonie logicielle et de la manière dont il peut être configuré. https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Networks_and_Routing/Integrating_an_MPLS_Connection_on_the_MX_LAN   -Avez-vous un commutateur de couche 3 pour tester ? Dans ce cas, vous pouvez éviter d'ajouter des couches de NAT et tester sans MX pour déterminer s'il s'agit d'une incompatibilité spécifique à MX. ... View more

In case it helps, it looks like 00:00:5E is VRRP.   https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14710389/reserved-mac-addresses-some-are-assigned-anyway   So I'm wondering if the port configuration on 46-48 of the MS isn't setup properly and potentially leaking through the MS to the MX LAN ports. I would setup a separate VLAN that is not configured on the MX, and ideally not not part of the trunk ports to the MX. ... View more

I also thought that an email may have gotten blocked, but I checked our Mimecast portal to confirm that only one email was sent by Meraki this morning. ... View more

Your plan is sound, including home runs for fiber. If you're aiming for cost efficiency of network hardware, I would consider a Mikrotik switch to connect the five buildings via fiber: either the CRS310-1G-5S-4S+IN or the netFiber 9 if wall mounting is more convenient. And then install an MS130 at each of the five buildings, depending on the number of ports needed. https://mikrotik.com/product/crs310_1g_5s_4s_in https://mikrotik.com/product/netfiber_9 ... View more

The answer is yes, but it has nothing to do with multiple Ethernet ports. By "yes", I mean that you can configure it so that all traffic for an SSID goes to a seprate MX by way of a separate VLAN that is not configured on the primary MX or is not trunked to it. This approach requires L2 connectivity between APs and MX. ... View more

Agreed. It might also be helpful to note some of the limitations on the WPN page, since that is based on iPSK in most cases AFAIK. https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Encryption_and_Authentication/Wi-Fi_Personal_Network_(WPN) ... View more

Have you found documentation confirming OSPF support on the CS? Or are you planning on running them with IOS-XE? If the former, which I would assume based on the '-M' models, I would try to clarify two points with Meraki support regarding the OSPF functionality would be the same as what is in the MS OSPF documentation. The docs note limitations with warm spare (VRRP). This may be a non-issue, but I couldn't find OSPF docs related to Catalyst switches in Meraki mode. I might also be misunderstanding the design. ... View more

I'd look into SNMP polling and Netflow. Is there a specific design goal or business use case that you're aiming to achieve? I expect that most Meraki networks would experience mostly north-south traffic so MX monitoring might address some of the utilization monitoring needs. https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Monitoring_and_Reporting/SNMP_Overview_and_Configuration https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Monitoring_and_Reporting/Meraki_Device_Reporting_-_Syslog%2C_SNMP%2C_and_API ... View more

Thanks for posting about this. But I'm a little unclear on the context: Is mandatory DHCP a requirement for this SSID/network/org?   And was mandatory DHCP enabled by default on a SSID/network/org? I'm pretty sure that it's always been off by default for me.   Meanwhile, I would recommend three sets of changes to the Meraki team: 1. Update all documentation related to mandatory DHCP 2. Update applicable best practices and CVD-like docs with a note about this 3. Add an 'i' with a  circle hover label near the toggles for this setting to link to the appropriate documentation and not potential compatibility issues with roaming on some devices. I'm going to make internal notes to keep this feature disabled for VLANs with wireless devices. ... View more

It seems like you have a few options: 1. Hire a wireless consultant 2. Install at least one AP in every room (mounted horizontally) 3. Accept that performance will not meet expectations of IT or users ... View more

I recommend using the multiple profiles feature. I usually do this in Chrome, but it also works in Edge. Firefox is a bit trickier, but may be doable. ... View more

When will these sessions be available to watch on-demand? ... View more

I am far more critical of the claim of "< 5 Sec" WAN failover that is patently false. Yeah, this is technically true in some specific conditions that doesn't help in 95% of cases. That's my rant for the day. ... View more

I have also been looking into this and have not found a managed solution that is reasonably priced to do this. And this would require local appliances if one wanted to avoid auth failures when there is an ISP failure.   This functionality currently more of a nice-to-have than mission critical on Meraki networks that I manage, so I haven't explored this deeply. ... View more

Now I'm jealous!   Cisco Meraki folks: any chance you can send out a few more hats? Feel free to message me directly. ... View more

I had previously helped to address Wi-Fi issues for Joan devices. They were not easy to work with, in general.   We had some success with one separate 2.4GHz SSID for Joan devices on Arista WAPs. We limited which WAPs had 2.4 GHz radio enabled, which was very helpful and is best practice anyways since there are only three 2.4 GHz channels. In your case, separate SSIDs for different WAPs might help.   At that time I ultimately recommended installing the Joan 6 Pro, which was the only model that supports a wall-mounted PoE dock. ... View more