Yeah true about the survey.  I think it would just be useful to gather info about where power runs to, mostly stuff like that.  But yeah, perhaps the approach is to build it out slowly.  Advise them that we'll stick a management station or router or whatever in, add a couple access points, see what we end up with, and if things look good then we proceed to expand out.  Otherwise, I don't see there being any ready-made turnkey solution to this sort of setup.     Understood regarding 2.4Ghz.  I could be wrong but I thought I had seen some sort of blurb somewhere about some WiFi 6 being able to run on 2.4Ghz, as opposed to the typical docs that say you can run concurrently .11n with newer stuff...this thing implied .11ax runs on 2.4Ghz.  I don't know, in any case, with a good connection with a handful of clients dividing .11n amongst each other, that's a form of rate limiting right there.     Good advice all around, thank you.  I suppose if I proceed with this I'll post more questions 🙂 I appreciate it!   ... View more

This is all great advice.  lol @ the "run" comment.  I was developing a gut feeling that some expectations reset would be necessary, now I"m convinced it is.   Currently, this campground has perhaps 'some' infrastructure in place.  A series of 4 or 5 Linksys WRT54g units.  I think a couple of them might be wired in, however, at least a couple of them are connected mesh or in some kind of repeater mode.  They even have connectivity metrics on a dashboard that I have not seen but I suspect these were redone with that DD-WRT firmware or something, as I don't recall wrt54g's ever having these capabilities.  One of them apparently even have a oversized antantee attached, I have no idea what, but it's way out of standard spec, yet it provides working WiFi for 100's of meters (I'm actually in Canada but used the ":mile" reference figuring most folks on here were in the US).     So:   Site survey:  seems I'll have to do more than one.  First, to see what's currently there, what poles and conduit for data/power already exist.  Also to map out the desired client areas.  Then back here to research what product line(s) will fit the need.  I am not a fan of mixed-vendor solujtions but Meraki is too costly I'm fairly sure here, though if I could at least get an MX in there... A second trip back after I've figured out what hardware we need.  I could buy hardware for "training" purposes, and then sell/deploy if the proof of concept works.  Dunno there, need to calculate my costs vs. gains if the owner says no thanks.    Would you charge for these site surveys?  Seems like a hell of a lot of work for not a big invoice potentially (I'm a consultant).  The client is an hour's drive in both directions.     Also, what are your thoughts on WiFi 5, 6, 6E here?  5 and 6Ghz are more future proof but shorter range...2.4Ghz has no future yet seems to be the only option for a wide area coverage, without going nuts with hardware costs.     Ok time to find my running shoes.....lol ... View more

How about building it out slowly?  Like in my case, I'm not really a WiFi survey expert.  I could walk around with inSSIDer for example, but would have the have the hardware in place first so I don't know, perhaps I'd have to install a WAP, document performance, and kind of go from there.  I'm way too used to simple small business setups where you just stick a WAP anywhere you find a dead spot, or reposition an existing one etc to do with reflection, detraction, refraction, subtraction and grammar anomalies 😉 anyway I wonder, is there a "Idiots Guide to WiFi Site Surveys" because I'm definitely the idiot on this one.     I'm curious but in your message it sounded like you're saying the transmit power can override the client response?  I didn't even know what was possible - I always assumed the transmit power, if set to max on all APs, might potentially cause issues with neithboring RF devices in the same channel space, but I didn't realize you could actually affect your clients' devices' response.  Would that be more in situations where the AP's and extenders are all using different SSID's and thus different channels potentially?  I'm so used to single-SSID with roaming via Meraki setups that I never even consider having multiple SSID's (unless it's virtual SSID's on the same network, like a guest one).   ... View more

I 'think' I still see the issues too.  It's hard to tell sometimes.  The types of people I facetime with often have just regular ISP-provided home routers/WiFi, so of course if they're moving around in their homes or offices it's going to be jumpy at times.     I have not tested extensively where if Facetime is acting up one day, we switch to Zoom or something else.     However, I can say one thing:  video streaming through all other services is never an issue - but, those are designed sometimes to buffer a bit of video to account for signal anomolies whereas of course video conferencing does not.  So who knows, but I never have glitches with say, Netflix, no matter where I roam around.     I do think Meraki has a need to dig further on this issue too, but I really think it requires a dedicated engineering effort, not just a bit of curiosity testing in the lab (if that's how it goes, I don't know 🙂 ).   ... View more

@Bsalami  I imagine others on here are better suited for a full conversation on feature improvements than I am.  I'm good at spotting issues, but I only go into the dashboard on occasion for each of my clients so I hadn't to date compiled an actual list of things.    Well, one thing that is still an issue to some extent, is why does Apple FaceTime perform so poorly through Meraki hardware.  I have different Cisco networks here, one based on Meraki gear, another based on RV and WAP hardware, and some ASA and other things.  Facetime only ever has problems when I am on Meraki.  This is a known issue, commented on often in this forum and elsewhere, and while I don't spend a lot of time researching this one, I wonder why?  Is it a certain protocol?  Is Cisco using standards whereas Facetime violates them, thus the issue, or vice versa, or is WMM default settings having a problem, etc.     When I have issues with FAcetime I just change over to another net and the issues always go away so that's my workaround, but it'd be great to understand why this is the case and, it's not the positioning of the AP's or what not.  I could start a Zoom meeting from my phone, standing in exactly the same spot as I was for Facetime (which I've done a few times).  Zoom works, Facetime has issues.     Odd stuff! 🙂 ... View more

Ah ha.  I'm a dummy.  So, I do have a Ports column, but I think it's only being populated due to the MS120. Even though, if I click on the port # (as seen in the screenshot), it brings me to the MX appliance page and not the MS page. And obviously, I can't have a Port 6 on an MX67 that has only 4 lan ports, so that kind of confirms that it's the MS it is bringing in here.  Tricksey tricksey!     Hey @jbaker , what do you mean by this weekend?  Something happening I don't know about? lol     ... View more

That was a mouthful but I read the entirety and enjoyed it.   So today is Oct 1 2020.  When logging into my MX67's I see I can still edit the Clients view to add a Port column.  FYI to anyone that doesn't know, there's also a Connected To column option, which I think perhaps is just for AP's, or that's all I saw when I was in there.     Still cannot do this on the MX65.    I can't seem to track down any MX64's at the moment to check.     I think this one just needs to get some priority for it to get done.  It's the kind of thing that should get done as a matter of embarrassment not having it, over new features. I do try to stay positive, but if I'm ever on the phone remotely with a client that says "can't you even see which is connected to what port?, now I have to pay you to drive or fly out here???", my first thought will be "damn you Meraki, c'mon for F sakes get your sh** together".  Luckily that hasn't happened for me yet.     Perhaps the MX64/65 memory space is so packed that adding the logic and table adjustments to process this feature creates a shuffle effect requiring adjustments all around.  I'm not a developer but I just don't really see why this isn't put in yet, unless as I think I said once before, it's for product positioning reasons why someone mistakenly thinks it's a good idea to leave this basic thing out to drive adoption of higher end MX's that do provide this visibility.     One thing that I do wish Cisco could do more of is participate in these forums.  To compare, Symantec has been very disconnected over the years from their customer base, and in many ways still suck because they outsource all their frontline support to new overseas teams with little experience and poor logistical/training support, but this year since the Broadcom merger and a change up in their endpoint security product lines, their senior tech, engineering, and product management people are all over the forums on a daily basis.  This creates real engagement and feedback loops, rather than what sort of seems the case at Cisco where frustrations are vented, mixed in with real feedback that's probably lost in the mix.  Maybe Cisco quietly monitors the forums for info, but I guess participation is very limited by what I've seen. I can't say enough thanks fo the MVP/frequent-poster type people on here.  They are the lifeblood of any tech company - even if that tech company is too lame-brained to realize it.  MVP's should be paid for this work as a show of appreciation, as it reduces support calls and well, anyway.  Thank you to you guys on that.     Here's hoping somebody in engineering gets this Ports thing done.  Meanwhile it remains one reason why Meraki MX64/65 units are not ideal remote connectivity solutions for times when nobody onsite is able to trace cables through the walls and ceiling.  🙂 ... View more

Yes I second that, again.  Meraki devices have an inconsistent experience.  It's all about remote and cloud management, simplified IT, etc. etc., and yet a most basic feature that 100% of network admins would say they need, is non-existent.  Sad to say but it demonstrates poor judgement and inconsistent marketing.  MX64/65 units are the primary go-to for anyone taking the promo webinar to get their first taste of Meraki, and yet the product is missing, again, what 100% of network admins would say is a critical feature and so basic to implement it shows a lack of product maturity to be missing it.  Anyway, not much point in getting into all this again but thanks for the timeline update!   I hope someone will keep a pulse on this issue over the months (or years....).   ... View more

hosts file.  That's another one that's been a long time for me lol, but yes that makes sense.  Well I have DHCP reservations already set up on the MX so I'm probably ok to go by IP address I think but if I have need, at least the reminder of the hosts file will apply.  Thanks very much for that too.   ... View more

Well I am sad to say, I'm a dummy.   I had thought the firewall was allowing ping on the client machines, turns out it wasn't, and sure enough disabling it fixed that (3rd party endpoint security but still).     I was able to reach a network share via the UNC pathing but only via IP address.  Now, since I haven't seen a real WINS server since um, Win 2000 days I can't even remember, should I have enabled that somehow in those client VPN settings, or, is there osme other way to get NetBIOS name resolution working without having any servers?  These are all Win 10 client PC networks, no servers, no AD at all.   And as always, never post in frustration lol, I missed the most basic thing and overlooked the simplest troubleshooting due to that .    Thank you btw, for the proper prodding I needed.   ... View more

Looks like I can only mark one post as solution but thank you Nash for the info! ... View more

haha! Ok you have me there, I don't use the API stuff as yet. Further training pending this year on Meraki but for now it's just GUI-time for me. But ok I feel foolish for such a long rant if they're already addressing this. I know CDP and I think LLDP had some security flaws recently found so maybe that's related or something. I have noticed lastely that a lot of device names have gone super-crazy, like long alphanumeric strings where there used to be simple NetBIOS names like "MyLaptop" and such. Now it's 20-25 character hyphenated strings, but only sometimes. ... View more

It's March 4 2020, and having access to many MX 64 and 65 units that I manage with latest firmware, it is confirmed there is no Port option in the column expansion options for the Network-Side > Clients list page. ... View more

I actually left this alone for a while, and then forgot about it to boot.  The problem didn't seem "as bad" as it had been, but still definitely a Meraki-specific problem because as soon as I switch over to my network running some Cisco WAP571's connected to an RV345P I have no problems.     I tend to be too busy these days to focus time on things that aren't driving me crazy, so my ability to switch to a different network when doing FaceTime gives me a workaround for now.  But as soon as it flares up, or a customer of mine needs this fixed, I'll be back to this issue like it had to be solved yesterday.  Were you able to do any kind of troubleshooting via the stuff in this thread?  Like anything tried that wasn't discussed here?   ... View more

Thanks for letting me know about the RingCentral thing.  I don't have that myself but one of my clients does - he hasn't reported issues but if I hear about it I'll have some idea where to start.  I'll take a look at the article you linked for any parallel issue stuff.  There's also some Apple iOS updates to get done on my end so I"ll try that too.  Phil suggested testing on 2.4GHz - I'll try that too.   But ultimately it seems that the Meraki platform doesn't need any special stuff like a custom WMM policy or what not, to make Facetime work.  I should also try some other kind of vidoe conference.   FWIW, streaming video never has issues, so it's so far only Facetime and the actual Internet connection is always strong.  Anyway, when I can I will jump into this testing and report back (even if it takes a couple weeks).   ... View more

Hello to you both, thanks for the replies.  I was half-done a reply on another ocmputer then lost track of where the darn thing was (a few physical machines, several Win 10 virtual desktoips each, and a partridge in a pear tree) so I'll start again.     I don't even touch 2.4 Ghz where I can help it, so it's 5 Ghz only so far.  I'll try 2.4 for testing though - any kind of differential diag is a good thing.    The dbm ratings are very good for the devices if I view them via the device-specific info screens in the Meraki dashboard, so I'm hoping that means there's no channel interference since the ratings (I think) are meant as an aggregate index of performance and not just a measure of signal to noise ratio stuff.  That said, you'd be incorrect to assume I checked, since actually I'm a bit of a dummy when it comes to WiFi spectrum surveying - I've never had to do it since so far the solution for most clients' awful WiFi has just been to move to 5Ghz.  🙂 So I'm open to any input on that in terms of what tools you'd suggest.  I'm not keen to use Linux tools though, Linux being for the smart folk out there and I'm just a Windows guy.     This forum display only shows your post so I can't see the other gentleman's post to reply to it so I'll click Post here and reply again momentarily.   ... View more

Sorry I just want to reiterate that the only place that indicates this port is running at 100 Mbps is when I hover the mouse over the green port picture of the actual MX.  Yet if I go perhaps to the MR33 itself, it indicates connected at 1 Gbps.  So it perhaps might just be the dashboard not updating properly too, and fwiw I opened the Meraki dashboard on a computer that's never been there berfore to rule out some glitchy browser cache thing.   ... View more

Port 12 works yeah, and I've taken the MR33 that was on that and tried it on port 11 with same result.  Now, I did ask the customer over the phone to take an MR33 and plug direct to port 11 thus bypassing in-wall cabling.  They did, but same result.  I'm keen to go onsite myself and do all this again from the top.  Before that, I'll reboot the MX though.   Firmware is latest on all devices yeah.  I'm also suspicious about power.  Everything in the whole utility closet is plugged into a $5 power strip from Moe's Power Strip Emporium or some such and I wonder if maybe it can't supply enough power anymore.  So I'll play with toggling power, like having port 12 empty while troubleshooting with port 11.   Lastly yeah it could be the actual port perhaps - I'll reserve that conclusion for when all else fails I suppose or I can try to see if I have a wire mapper/tester handy.     I shall check back in a few days.   ... View more