Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Register or Sign in
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About MSakr
MSakr
Here to help
Member since May 3, 2024
Wednesday
Community Record
17
Posts
14
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Sunday
Hi Strange that the error message doesn't appear all the time, now it disappeared.. The Edge VLAN connections are set as access ports.. only the internal management port is set as trunk with a default native VLAN 1 (not set anywhere) but will allow all VLAns
... View more
Sunday
Hi All After adding an MX to our Network, our edge switch stack is showing VLAN mismatch warning between the switch uplink configured on an inside VLAN and used for the switch IP configuration and communication with the dashboard and the edge VLAN needed for our edge appliances (MXs) communication with the ISP equipment.. How to solve such an issue, knowing that we cannot assign a public IP for the Edge switches due to lack of available public IPs and mostly even if we had these, for security.. Thanks
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Layer 2
Sunday
Hi All Still with Meraki support on this one, they are trying to figure it out why it is open and responding to such requests..
... View more
2 weeks ago
Yes indeed, I enabled the early access on this one.. this is why you see the IPV4 rules.. looks more professional for me this way 🙂 Thanks for the pointer to the firewall info.. I found a strange snmp inbound rule there that isn't set anywhere in my rules to one public IP from a range routed to the WAN public IP with source the Meraki Networks.. no clue why this is there even though the target IP is not the WAN Ip
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi @ww I don't see a Firewall>Info section under my mx95.. however the inbound L3 rules are set to the default deny.. I don;t want to set an explicit deny for port 53 as this in theory might block all forwarder DNS traffic..
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi @PhilipDAth I don't have any DHCP scopes set, all VLANs are configured not to respond to any DHCP requests.. Nor are there setups pointing the appliance as a DNS relay or DNS.. I am pointing everywhere towards Google ones
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi All Our ISP was complaining about port 53 being open with an active dns resolver on it dnsmasq-2.85 Now this is a new firewall that went live a few days ago, there is no port forwarding rules configured there, so why port 53 is open.. i tested from another public IP and port 53 is indeed open.. Why this is the case and what other ports are expected to be open? how to make sure all ports are closed from internet initiated traffic as these should be? We don't have any DNS service exposed on the public IP nor any NAT other than WAN standard NAT is on for inbound LANs to access the internet.. the MX is in routed mode obviously Thanks
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Firewall
2 weeks ago
1 Kudo
Yeah.. and the Y2K too.. so many sleepless nights.. and the Red Alert/Nimda Virus in the eary 2Ks with IIS being enabled and open on every windows machine.. these were the days
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi after connecting the new MX, the Core MS stack is not able to ping the mx on the 66 vlan, I suspect the issue of configuring the vlan on the MX as packets are tagged on both sides might be the culprit -- Disregard, I had to make sure the Native VLAN was correct now on the IF
... View more
2 weeks ago
2 Kudos
Nice to emeet @cmr , I go back to the BBS era 🙂 but my Cisco experience started in the 2Ks..
... View more
2 weeks ago
2 Kudos
The rough design will look something like this.. I presume I will need to enable loop guard on the links between the core stack and the MX for sure given no LACP can be configured on the MX..
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hmm.. does it make sense to do it so on aggregated ports? knowing that our architecture is a hub and spoke with the core stack connecting only to each of the edge/access stacks by separately aggregated ports, the uplink ports of each switch of a stack are aggregated with the downlink ports in each switch of the core stack connecting to that specific access/edge stack.. thus the only loop would be between the aggregated ports, which in theory should not as they are aggregated and used in parallel for bandwidth stacking, see as an example below how 2 are interpreted:
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi @DarrenOC RSTP is enabled on the link between the core stack and the Edge/Access stacks switches but STp guard is disabled, I wans't the one who configured them initially, likely to maximize traffic throughput.. and this setup has been working flawlessly.. Same setup goes currently from the core stack switches uplinks to the current firepower: And all the up/downlink ports are in forwarding mode
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi @Brash thanks.. definitely some of the drawbacks were the limitations in the ACLs, NAT and granularity of features and event logging but it compensates in the ease of managing it and reduces uncertainties for the less experienced team... but before we do the switch, it might be great if any have some pointers to comparisons if any made.. "STP root configured to the correct switch.." hmm that's a good pointer.. we have 6 stacks and the core stack is the one connecting all the stacks together and to the firewall , I presume its the core stack we are talking about? thanks again
... View more
2 weeks ago
7 Kudos
Hi All Glad to find and join the community. Mike from Canada working for a multinational company, introduced our company to Meraki 3 years ago, been a Cisco fan since the mid 2000s, made sure to switch to Meraki due to its ease of use and performance, hoping that the community will help in our process of embracing fully Meraki and at the same time I am expecting to return the favour to the community.. Fun fact.. have been so long in this business that I recall our first IT positions titles were: Computer Mike out..
... View more
2 weeks ago
Hi All We are planning to replace our Cisco Firepower Firewall with an MX series one, and the downstream is an all Meraki Layer 3 switches that is segregated into VLANs on an MS425 core stack.. Now currently the stack uplink ports are aggregated on the stack side and LACPed on the current Firepower and a transit VLAN is set between the Firepower and the core stack.. my 2 questions: - I am looking to setup VLANs on the MX LAN interfaces so I can setup a similar IDed transit VLAn and also assign an IP to the interfaces/VLAN .. didn;t see any other option.. is it a proper approach? will setting up such a VLAN on the Switch stack and on the MX conflict somehow? - As it is not possible to setup LACP on the MX, I will be connecting each core switch stack member uplink to a Lan port on the MX, and hope that STP guard will block the redundant links and keep one active at anytime.. any suggestions here? Thank you all for the help
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | 1742 | |
| 2 | 1686 | |
| 2 | 2898 | |
| 2 | 2948 | |
| 1 | 1532 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
