Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About GilParente
GilParente
Comes here often
Member since Oct 22, 2018
Oct 21 2022
Community Record
6
Posts
0
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Oct 19 2022
6:15 AM
Hi, Yes IGMP querier is set up. Please see snapshot
... View more
Oct 18 2022
2:35 PM
Thanks for the response alemabrahao, I'm aware of those details. However I do find strange that device does not receive any general messages from the querier, where other devices on the same Vlan do. Shouldn't I see messages from the querier on that port?
... View more
Oct 18 2022
1:53 PM
Hi brain trust, I have one device that doesn't seem to properly respond to IGMPv3 general messages. Or so I thought. Here is a packet capture snapshot, filtered for IGMP. Notice the lack of IGMP requests.. I'm trying to track down if this is a MS switch querier issue, or the device not properly sending the initial membership report message. Switch - MS250-48 Pcap is 3 mins long, to give time for multiple requests from the Querier Any ideas of what I should be tracking down?
... View more
Dec 20 2018
7:52 PM
Hi guys and guyettes, Trying to turn to crowd knowledge here. I've deployed a system that seems to have questionable Snooping performances. I've ran some PCAPs and looked into a few devices on my network (most AV related) and noticed that some multicast traffic on a particular port should not have been there. Others are snooped. any indication of how to properly check if the switches are in fact properly snooping? Network typology is below (not the greatest) Inventory: MX100 to modem IDF1 - MS250-24P - to MX MDF Stack (MDF 1 and 2) MS250-48 - to IDF1 MDF 3,4,5 - MS120 - to MDF stack. Switch Settings: Querier on MDF Stack Querier on IDF2 MultiCast Settings - IGMP snooping and Floor enabled on Default. Not sure if I should force a IGMP snooping enabled on all switches instead of believing the Default. Any ideas? thx
... View more
Dec 11 2018
12:23 PM
@jdsilva, Thanks for your help. So, if this is correct, I will then only do my L3 rules in the MX to prevent unwanted restrictions. I know that, in the MX firewall rules, the rules are applied in the order of appearance. With that in mind, if I'd like a specific subnet to have access to specific IP adress, but nothing else, what would be the proper rule? Can I do deny all, then allow only one IP address? Example: Allow 10.0.12.0/24 to 10.0.1.100/32 deny 10.0.12.0/24 to 10.0.1.0/24 Or would I have to create two deny rules: deny 10.0.12.0/24 to 10.0.1.0 to 10.0.1.99 deny 10.0.12.0/24 to 10.0.1.101 to 10.0.1.254 Or am I overthinking this? thx
... View more
Dec 11 2018
7:22 AM
Hi Meraki expert friends!! I'm trying to properly isolate some VLans in this specific customer's network. The basic of the system: MX100, MS250s and MS120s MR52s VLANS: (don't judge, I didn't set this up, lol) 1 - AV 8 - Staff 12 - Guest 24 - Kids 32 - Video 45 - Camera Control 55 - Lighting I will be combining some of these as soon as I can test functionality. Now for the real question: If I created SSID L3 rules to Deny Local Lan on a specific SSID, does that supersede any L3 rules in the MX? for example. SSID - Staff has Deny Local Lan, but I wanted to allow connection to a specific device on another VLan/subnet If I set up a MX rule to Allow - 10.x.x.x/24 source to 10.x.x.x/32, would that work? or would it still be blocked by the SSID rule? Thx. and my apologies if this is a dumb question. Gil
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
