Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Become a member of the Cisco Meraki Community today
Get answers from our community of experts in record time.
Join now- About iores
About iores
iores
Getting noticed
Member since Nov 16, 2023
Online
Community Record
70
Posts
2
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
yesterday
I meant the traffic outside the shaping rules. How is such traffic considered?
... View more
yesterday
What about the traffic that is not considered by matching rules? Would it be correct to say that such traffic will use remaining available bandwidth in addition to available bandwidth from high, medium low classes? If there is no congestion on WAN uplink, then the whole uplink bandwidth is used normally with Meraki QoS, right?
... View more
yesterday
Would this be correct understaning. Let's say WAN uplink is 10 Mbps. If high priority is configured, it will get 4/7 or 5.71 Mpbs. However, if bandwidth limit of 1 Mbps is configured at the same time, assigned bandwidth of 5.71 Mbps will still be the same for the high priority class, it's just it will get sent at 1 Mbps, and will not use its full potential. The rest of 4.71 can be user by either other priority classes or default traffic class.
... View more
yesterday
@GIdenJoe What is the purpose of bandwidth limit which is configured under the shaping rule if high, normal, and low priority classes don't take this into account when taking 4/7, 2/7, or 1/7 fraction of the bandwidth? How to interpret if I have, for example, two rules with high priority and bandwidth limit of 5 Mbps?
... View more
Thursday
@GIdenJoe If I only set e.g. High priority without setting the bandwidth limit, does this mean that the entire bandwidth will be assigned for that class, but other traffic will used it as well if the uplink is not totally congested with the high priority traffic? Is there any Meraki or experience-based best practice for similar use case? Calculations for High, Medium, and Low are based on the bandwidth limit or on uplink configuration value?
... View more
Thursday
What if high priority only is used with no bandwidth limit set (ignore network per-client limit option)? What will happen to the default traffic? How is bandwidth distributed in such case?
... View more
Thursday
What exactly Obey network per-client limit means? Where is that configured? How bandwidth limit and priority values are related?
... View more
Thursday
Hi, I need to reserve 10 mbps bandwidth of WAN uplink for certain applications based on destination IP or FQDN. I have never done it with Meraki so I have few question. SDWAN & Traffic shaping >> Traffic shaping rule - I believe this is the place where I need to configure this. Would this be correct? How "Per-client bandwidth limit" and "Prirority" interact together? Is it true that priority levels High, Normal, and Low will assign the 4/7, 2/7, and 1/7 fraction of uplink bandwidth? For this to work, does this mean that configured values under SDWAN & Traffic shaping >> Uplink configuration, WAN 1 and WAN need to match the actual uplink bandwidth? I believe that Priority needs to be High or Normal, but what to configure for Per-client bandwidth limit? Best regards,
... View more
a month ago
Hi, if group policy applied to VLAN has one settings, and group policy applied to Client has other settings, will both get applied?
... View more
Dec 1 2025
1:17 PM
Could you, please, explain in a more detail why do you consider it 'risky'?
... View more
Dec 1 2025
1:05 PM
I am interested only in this specific case from the initial post. How it will not get blocked since access port also send BPDUs?
... View more
Dec 1 2025
12:59 PM
Since RSTP doesn't tag BPDUs, then MX somehow tracks in which VLAN it receives BPDUs? Then, if acces VLAN is not allowed on trunk, I guess everyrhing should be fine. But, if access VLAN is also allowed on the trunk, then MX should forward BPDUs, and the switch should block the port since RSTP doesn't create separate topology for each VLAN?
... View more
Dec 1 2025
12:47 PM
Hi, What will happen if a switch is connected to MX with one trunk port, and one access port? Will RSTP block one of the two ports on the switch given the fact that MX doesn't speak STP?
... View more
Nov 3 2025
11:04 AM
How exactly S2S rules work? On which device exactly are they being applied? Where is the point of enforcement since they are applied at organization level?
... View more
Nov 3 2025
9:20 AM
I have tried basic group policy to deny ICMP traffic from site A to site B. Group policy was applied to source VLAN at site A, and it actually denied ICMP traffic. What am I missing?
... View more
Nov 1 2025
4:58 AM
Group policy attached to a VLAN will work for site-to-site VPN traffic?
... View more
Oct 31 2025
12:28 PM
Is there any maximum number of such firewall rules, and do they affect performance of MXs?
... View more
Oct 20 2025
11:20 AM
Well, in such Meraki setup where one big central "ACL" is used for VPN traffic, I have no other option but tu analyze each ACL entry.
... View more
Oct 20 2025
11:18 AM
2 Kudos
Yes, it really is horrible job. I will end up with one final ACL containing several thousand entries. I appreciate the suggestion about using description.
... View more
Oct 19 2025
1:53 PM
I was aiming more at how to create one big central ACL from hundreds of single ACLs, without the need to analyze every ACL entry. For example, if one ACL entry at location X, uses summarized prefix (10.0.0.0/8) to denote source IPs at that specific location, if I just copy this as site-to-site VPN firewall rule I could influence traffic from all locations, not just X, and I don't want to do that.
... View more
Oct 19 2025
10:27 AM
Hi, I need to translate hundreds of individual ACLs to one "big ACL" comprised of site-to-site VPN firewall rules. Since the site-to-site VPN firewall rules are applied to the whole organization, it is not just copy-and-paste. What are you experiences or suggestions to effectively perform this?
... View more
Aug 27 2025
10:04 AM
Could you please explain the third point? How would that be possible?
... View more
Aug 27 2025
9:52 AM
I forgot to mention - this is L2 aggregation LAN switch, not dedicated WAN switch. Technically, I know this should work but given Meraki design requirements, I wonder if this would still be OK? I have no other options but I want to investigate all possible risks.
... View more
Aug 27 2025
9:46 AM
Hi, I have two MXs in HA. They are connected to downstream Meraki switch. I have only one physical ISP connection. 1. Is it recommended to use downstream Meraki switch to interconnect MXs and ISP via dedicated VLAN? 2. Generally speaking, for warm spare and Virtual IP to work, do WAN ports need to be directly connected to ISP, or it can be done via switch in between? I have seen Meraki documentation where WAN ports are connected directly to ISP.
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2201 |
© 2026 Cisco Systems, Inc.
