Meraki

Mazide · ‎Oct 8 2024

The intermediate switch is a Layer 3 C1300. My goal is to assign an IP address to each interface, both on the MX and the intermediate switch. The switch would technically act as the router (forwarding ´ and natting packets) while the MX behind it handles Wi-Fi, security, and other services.

Mazide · ‎Oct 5 2024

Yes, your assumption is correct. However, I’ll be using the WAN interface of the MX devices to connect to the intermediate switches, so VRRP packets will still be sent through the LAN ports. The only difference from a setup where the MX is directly connected to the ISP is that the MX will receive a private IP address from the intermediate switch for internet access. The diagram I attached would have been the ideal solution, but most providers won’t activate two ports for businesses.

Mazide · ‎Sep 28 2024

It might not have been clear, but each different cable color represents a different VLAN. The purple cable running over each MX to the uplink switches is for the management VLAN, which serves a different purpose than forwarding WAN traffic.

Mazide · ‎Sep 28 2024

I was aware of the first two options but not the third one (load balancing between ISP1 and ISP2). With the monitoring tool we have both WAN interfaces are added but only one is forwarding traffic. I’ll change that asap. Thanks Phil!

Mazide · ‎Sep 28 2024

I'm currently simulating this setup in Packet Tracer. Right now, all the traffic is going through ISP1, and I'm trying to figure out why the second router won't forward traffic when the first one goes down. I understand it's just Packet Tracer 😞 just using it to get a general idea of the behavior. Thanks for your explanation. I think PhilipDAth is also explaining the same concept.

Mazide · ‎Sep 25 2024

Hello everyone! I hope you’re all doing well, I have a question regarding Option 6: Two MX, two ISPs (4), and I’d like to clarify the traffic flow in the event of a primary MX failure. Would the traffic be routed through the switch connected to ISP1 or ISP2? Both switches are L3 managed but do not support load balancing—how does this affect traffic distribution? Will both ISPs be utilized simultaneously? I’m particularly interested in understanding how traffic flows from the internal LAN to the Meraki, through the two switches to the ISPs, especially if the primary MX fails. In that scenario, what would the traffic path look like? Would both switches share the load, or would only one be active? Thank you!

Mazide · ‎Jul 27 2024

Thank you Karstenl for sharing this. I particularly like Option 6: Two MX, two ISPs (4), which ensures that there is a backup for each component (FAI, Switch and MX) Pros: - redundancy and reliability. - minimum single point of failure. Cons: - Requires physical intervention if a switch fails, as the ISP connection needs to be moved manually from the damaged switch to the working one. - Having two links from the ISP is not common and may not be feasible for all setups. Despite these potential drawbacks, I believe the added redundancy makes this option the best choice.

Mazide · ‎Jul 24 2024

I like the idea of using a separate switch for each ISP with non meraki switches. Do you recommend having a direct link between the two MX devices for the HA ? Yes, we do have that effect on the client dashboard with public IPs. Thank you for your advice.

Mazide · ‎Jul 24 2024

Hello everyone, I'm seeking advice on best practices to set up a robust network at our branch office to minimize downtime. Here's our current setup: We have two separate internet connections from 2 different providers. Each internet connection terminates on a separate port on our MS120 switch. Each MX95 device is connected to the MS120 switch via a separate port. Additionally, each MX device has two links to the LAN. Could anyone advise on the best configuration practices using these components to ensure reliable connectivity and seamless failover? Any insights or recommendations would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Meraki

Community

About Mazide

Mazide

Abdoul Mazide Balde

Community Record

Badges

Re: TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

Re: TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

Re: TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

Re: TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

Re: TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

TRAFFIC FLOW ANALYSIS FROM LAN, MX95 TO WAN

Re: MX95 WAN CONNECTION BEST PRACTICE

Re: MX95 WAN CONNECTION BEST PRACTICE

MX95 WAN CONNECTION BEST PRACTICE

Re: MX95 WAN CONNECTION BEST PRACTICE