Well , no success  ( refer to : 08772837 ) :    Hello Raphael, This is a feature not a bug based on the functionality of the different MXes. There is no fix that will be released and is treated as expected behavior depending on the MX model.   @Ryan_Miles I'm confused ... View more

I think I have seen IEEE 802.3az settings on some models of Lexmark. I could be wrong , will have to check tomorrow   ... View more

Hi ,   Please refer to this documentation to create vlans on a MX : https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Networks_and_Routing/Configuring_VLANs_on_the_MX_Security_Appliance   By default , inter-vlan routing is enabled and there are no firewall rules blocking the trafic. You might need to check that also : https://documentation.meraki.com/General_Administration/Cross-Platform_Content/Using_Layer_3_Firewall_Rules ... View more

The only way you could do it , is via a template that includes ALL your APs. Otherwise , I would suggest using the API to configure individualy each network to avoid issues. ... View more

All your other printers are the same model and running the same firmware ? As cmr suggested , try forcing the speed and duplex. This could also be a Eco feature kicking in  ... View more

Great ! Do we know if there is a fix coming ? Also , can we identify what 'certain platforms' are ? I'm guessing the MX250 is included   Thanks a lot ! ... View more

There is no easy way to do that.    You could sort the syslog and filter the logs per public IP.    let's say WAN1 has public IP 1.1.1.1 and WAN2 public IP 2:2:2:2,  in the syslog you will see the WAN IP. You could also do a packet capture and see where the trafic is egressing.   Currently the only ways that I'm aware. ... View more

I haven't yet. This is how I would reproduce the 'issue' :   On MX250. Create 1 vlan ( 20 ) On both MS350, create 2 uplinks ( trunks , native vlan 20 , allow all vlans ). Create 1 access port with a undefined vlan on the MX ( my case that would be 50 )    Connect a client a generate multicast / broadcast. You will notice that the packets can transit the MX250 and reach the other MS350   Do the exact same thing on a MX68 and it won't work since the MX68 will only allow the vlans that it knows ( are defined )    ... View more

Probably pagination like I explained.    1- Is network L_674414044198733458 present in https://api.meraki.com/api/v1/organizations/457116/devices/statuses ? ... View more

If you have more than 1000 devices and you are filtering on dormant , I think it will filter on the first page only 1-1000 first devices . Let's say that your dormant device is device 1001 , you won't see it in the results. ... View more

Hi ,   Do you have more than 1000 devices ? If so , my guess would be that you are not using pagination : https://developer.cisco.com/meraki/api-latest/#!get-organization-devices-statuses.  ... View more

Maybe to prevent the smaller MX to forward trafic for non pruned vlans. Might be that , still it is undocumented which is probably my main concern if that's the case ... View more

That's the first time I hear that, but MX configured in a warm space DO respond to icmp. Just tested it on multiple MX450s   Also you could use SNMP to monitor the box , Webhooks and dashboard alerts ... View more

The packet capture shows 1.1.1.1 / 8.8.8.8 responding to the query ?   On google public dig box :      ... View more

I have not tested it yet , but this API endpoint should combine 2 networks : https://developer.cisco.com/meraki/api-latest/#!combine-organization-networks     ... View more

Out of curiosity , what kind of bug ? Was it under 29.4 ? ... View more

I agree with Meraki. If the pcap shows that your DNS server did respond to the query with the '104.225.8.29'.  I would check on the DNS server that is responding to the queries. ... View more

1. It seems that when BGP is enabled, it takes effect on an organizational level. Yes and no. If all spoke are still pointing to the existing HUB as a start? What's the question ? does enabling BGP create a problem. Depends on the setup I could see iBGP being formed between all HUB and Spoke even if Spoke is pointing to the existing HUB.  2. When spoke has new HUB as the primary hub I am assuming that the spoke start sending traffic to the new HUB? Should be. 3. Spokes still pointing to the existing HUB will route via the old HUB?      HUB_1_NEW can be 'bgp enabled' while HUB_1_OLD is not.  Only 1 AS per Org.   All spokes that are using HUB_1_NEW as a exit hub will be advertised via eBGP to the neighbor configured. All spokes that are still using HUB_1_OLD as a exit hub will remain unchanged.    I'm not sure if it's still the case but hubs used to form iBGP neighbors between them. You had to ask support to enable a backend option 'NO_HUB_TO_HUB'.  But I could be wrong. We were one of the first on running bgp a while ago. Might have changed.     ... View more

Just to be sure to really understand your issue.    You are having logs on a Cisco Switch that says that host X is flapping on interface X,Y which are both interfaces towards Meraki AP.  Host X is currently wired and the MAC is his wired MAC.      The only way I could see that happening , if the AP are in a wireless bridge together.  Eg : packet A comes on Gi1/0/1 , AP1 forwards the packet to AP2 , AP2 forwards the packet on Gi1/0/2. The switch learns the MAC on int Gi1/0/2 and so on. I might be completly off the track though. ... View more

Super easy to figure out. Take a packet capture on the interfaces that are showing a MAC flap.   What are the MAC that are flapping ? Wireless clients ?- ... View more

Just like alemabrahao , this is 'normal' : https://documentation.meraki.com/MS/Monitoring_and_Reporting/Loop_and_MAC_Flap_Detection_on_MS   If access points are on bridge mode MAC flap event log may be seen if wireless client roams between access points faster than switch MAC address table expiration. which could mean there is a loop in the topology, or a misbehaving wireless client roaming back and forth between access points.    The clients might be roaming a bit too much and back and forth. ... View more