@AndyF in my case I had only one MR36 reporting this issue.  It is a Meraki switch in my case.  The cable test built into dashboard passed no problem.  I had a tech sent to the site, he replaced replaced a cat6 termination and now the link negotiates to 1Gbps.  I like your theory 🙂 ... View more

@Balcarrasif your setup is large-scale, make sure you involve your Cisco account manager.  There seems to be a lot of large-scale setups impacted by this bug.  ... View more

@sam-comstockI have a case open with them and here is the latest I just got.   "Thank you for providing this information. At this time, we have no confirmed reports of link negotiation issues forwarded to our engineering team that match what has been observed in your network so far. However, in an effort to further troubleshoot this issue could you please give our 24/7 support hotline a call when someone is available onsite? We would like to take packet captures and check back end logs simultaneously while the AP is connected to the switch port to monitor the link negotiation process. From there, we will be able to fully determine if this matches a reported negotiation issue."   I called them back but they wanted me to physically disconnect the cable while they take some packet capture.  I am not close to my site then I couldn't do it.  I am not sure if this is something support has asked anyone else.  In the other hand, there is a reason why this thread has been seeing more than 16,000 times 🙂 ... View more

@Nick_TMdid you get an answer? ... View more

@hechoinlmusd1 was this issue fixed for you with your rollback to 29.71? ... View more

Hi.  Was this issue ever fixed?  I am in US and I have two MXs in two different locations connected to the same ISPs. Both locations report DHCPv6 renewal messages every two hours.  At least from one of the locations I have received reports of random(?) Internet disconnections.   I do see the DHCPv6 messages in the log.  Any other failure message I can find when the renewal takes place? ... View more

I called them again but they still don't know the trigger. The workaround is the downgrade. They referred as well once again to the backend feature.  Really odd! Meraki support is good when you need their assistance with basic things: configs, licenses, packet captures and so on. When the issues are bugs you can never get a clear explanation. ... View more

before that they recommended a reboot and I did it. The problem was solved. The after that I opened a case and they said this:   I apologize for the issues you've been experiencing with the high utilization of your MX.   --- After investigating, I found that there is a known backend issue causing high CPU utilization following the upgrade to firmware version 18.211.3. As a workaround, we would need to disable the backend feature internally on your MX and downgrade it to version 18.211.2, which is the current stable release. I recommend reaching out to our support team at your convenience by calling +1 415-937-6671. We’re available 24/7, and any engineer will be able to assist you with this issue. ---- I never called them.  The whole backend issues sound fishy to me   ... View more

about one month ago. ... View more

Yes. I confirm an HA pair MX105 is struggling to stay below 50% and it is hardly doing anything   ... View more

I am running that code.  It seems to be it is just a cosmetic bug.  Clients are getting IPv6 assignments from the right /64 but the assignments are not visible under IPv6 prefixes section.   ... View more

@RaphaelL I have the same issue in one HA pair MX95 ... View more

@CLEBERPENTEADO I have the same behavior in at least two different MX75.  It shows a successfull DHCPv6-PD Request but the WAN delegated prefix section shows as either Fully Utilized or Not Assignable.  In addition I don't see a /64 assigned to any of my VLANs.  Maybe @PhilipDAth can assist somehow? ... View more

After adding the new links the setup is working as expected. The only drawback is that switch usw-b sees usw-a as its uplink through the ISP connection. The reason is because the spare mx84 I believe  ... View more

@PhilipDAth Sorry I forgot to add the screenshot from the switch point of view        ... View more

@PhilipDAth I completed the connections as previously shown on my earlier post. I can now see from usw-a the other switch usw-c. I assume the mx84 is bridging all LAN ports. Is that the correct assumption?  ... View more

@PhilipDAthI guess after all I was missing a connection in my diagram.  I will have run another pair of cables just to carry the management traffic. @PhilipDAth wrote: Put the ISP traffic in one VLAN and present it to the WAN ports, and management traffic in another VLAN and present it to the LAN ports. Here is the diagram.  I will use port#6 of the MX84 for both active/spare ... View more

@PhilipDAth I can’t put not ISP traffic and management traffic in the same VLAN. That is my problem  @PhilipDAth wrote: Port 1 (the ISP links) does not need to be tagged.  Just put it into a VLAN and present that to the WAN ports of the MX.   ... View more

@PhilipDAth the issue here is that the port#1 for both usw-a and usw-b is not tagged.  At the same time devices a and b, need to connect to the Internet for management purposes but they need to be behind the firewall. I have the option to tag the management traffic for devices a and b. I forgot to say devices a, b, c and d are managed layer2 switches. Any ideas? ... View more