regarding the documentation the check happens all 4-6 hours so it‘s hard to capture… is there a way to trigger it? ... View more

thanks for your response! I thought that too but when I read through this documentation - at the bottom of the page - my understanding is that it would be routed through the VPN…   https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Networks_and_Routing/MX_Routing_Behavior     ... View more

hi, i‘m currently facing the same problem between a meraki MS425 and an Aruba VSF stack… every basic settings is correct but one link does‘nt work! @TheBR did you found a solution for the issue already?  ... View more

OK - but will there be an interruption for the productive enviroment? I´ve to say that this ports are used as uplinks for the meraki equipment (internet access) too... 😞 ... View more

is this answer still valid and that kind of setup is also not working with MS425? ... View more

@PhilipDAth  based on Meraki this is probably the "best" solution from a technical point of view, but which functionalities do you lose here or how easy is the troubleshooting? I think that Meraki equipment in such constellations is not the cleanest solution...   what I ask myself - is there a recommended behaviour how an existing MS425 stack should/could be splitted? ... View more

does Vlan1 need to be untagged (= native) on the trunk links? It is important to note however that as Rapid-PVST is a multi-VLAN spanning tree protocol, MS series switches can participate in spanning tree only when a spanning tree instance is running on VLAN 1 of all switches. In addition, VLAN 1 must be allowed on all trunk ports running Rapid-PVST, so that BPDUs are seen by the Meraki switches in the topology.   how will the meraki switches behave when there are different native vlans on trunk links? ... View more

it's an older topic but for the sake of completeness... please have a look under --> Network-wide/General/Device configuration   I guess this is the setting you´re looking for! ... View more

OK, when disabling RSTP on the Ports would it make sense to use BPDU-Guard and/or Port-Security to get a rough Layer2 Security to avoid potential issues? ... View more

@KarstenI wrote:   There will be no separation. With "only" running RSTP and no "per VLAN", the main trunk has to transport the whole traffic or you will run into STP-problems. regarding to this I´ve  to add another sketch I`m concerned here with the respective yellow markings! The goal which I´d like to achive is a separation of the VLAN-Database on Site A and Site B so they would allow the same VLAN-IDs used on each of the sites but don`t affect each other!   ... View more

hi @KarstenI … not sure if you‘d lead a course about cisco ftd which i joined last year online?! 🙂   maybe you can also give me an advice about the disabling of stp on the ports which will connect on both ms switches so only a routed connection will exist and allow a separation of layer2 vlan domains? ... View more

Hi,   I´d like to ask a question regarding to this! Is there anyhting else what should be considered when using this? e.g. BPDU-Filter or BPDU-Guard on the used ports on each side or other STP related topics to avoid possible Loops?   Is this also a Meraki suggested solution with official documentation? ... View more

Hi,   I´m currently also dealing with this topic and, for the sake of completeness, would just like to give a short update in this thread!   Finally, in addition to the above configurable priorities, there is an additional low-latency queue priority which is not user configurable.  This queue has a greater priority than all other queues and as such is serviced before all other queues.  Only packets with a DSCP value of 46 (EF - Expedited Forwarding, Voice) are placed into this queue.  This feature is available and enabled on all MX14+ networks. https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Firewall_and_Traffic_Shaping/Using_Packet_Prioritization_on_a_Traffic_Shaping_Rule   The only question for me is regarding the red marked part does anyone know how large this queue is or if/what parameter is used for policing that traffic? ... View more

the “problem“ is, that the customer uses vlan-id‘s greater 1000… 😕 ... View more

what does the keyword option ‘ignore‘ mean in detail? Ignore: This option will appear as selected if there is a newer firmware version available but nothing is currently scheduled. If an upgrade was scheduled but was subsequently cancelled (either from the Organization > Firmware Upgrades page or by Support), the Ignore option will be selected. does this mean that all updates are ignored or only a specific one?! ... View more

@cmr  this options are available for my organization...   ... View more

first I´ve upgraded to Version 15.43.1 -> no change, issue still existing, now I changed to the stable one which is 15.44 -> no change as well, the problem unfortunately still exists 😞 I´ll open a case and check with the support-team... ... View more

Hi all,   same on my side with 15.43 - I´ll give it a try and will upgrade to 15.43.1!   thanks @Thierno for the information! 🙂 ... View more

Hi to all, I´m also noticing that "problem" in one of my networks but till now I could`nt find a problem on the physical lines or cpe-routers 😞 could probably the NAT- which is done on a 3rd Party Firewall before the 1-armed-concentrator be the problem? if so, what`s the best way I can troubeshoot that? ... View more