Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Register or Sign in
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About nickydd9
nickydd9
Getting noticed
Member since Dec 3, 2018
Mar 31 2023
Nick Davis
Community Record
30
Posts
22
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Jan 19 2022
8:49 PM
3 Kudos
Thanks @MerakiDave for the detailed reply. Much of what you describe are the workarounds that I have been using while patiently / hopefully awaiting a new updated official stencil set. I have not thought to use the images from the sizing tool for this purpose, that's creative. I personally have just been grabbing images off the web, cropping them out in GIMP, and then exporting them from there and importing to Visio and creating new master shapes from these freshly cropped images. This is all fine and dandy and I will likely continue to do this, but just was maybe hoping there was a *cough* roadmap *cough* for a new stencil set.
... View more
Jan 19 2022
10:01 AM
8 Kudos
Is Cisco Meraki going to come out with updated Visio Stencils for newer hardware that has come out, for example the MX75? It seems they haven't been updated since some time in 2019.
... View more
Jun 29 2021
12:52 PM
2 Kudos
I have a new avatar! My feet are cold @MeredithW
... View more
Oct 23 2020
7:13 AM
Hi all, Just had a quick question around breaking out my WAN connectivity from an ISP that only provides a single handoff, when I actually need multiple handoffs for NAT HA Warm Spare. I already understand I need a minimum /29 subnet to use a Virtual IP and all that, I am just concerned with the WAN Breakout portion. As I understand I have 2 options: 1) Breakout using spare ports on a LAN switch downstream of the MXes on their own isolated "ISP VLAN" and feed it back up to the MX 2) Breakout using a an external switch upstream of the MX I am actually preferable to Option #2 to isolate my ISP traffic from the LAN side of my network. I have actually done this before with a simple unmanaged L2 gigabit switch and it has worked fine. If it was to ever fail I just ship a new one out and call it a day. What I am wondering is if I was to use a Meraki 8-Port switch as the external breakout switch, would the config have to be a bit different because I now ALSO need to have that 8-port switch communication to Meraki Cloud to show as online, or will the switch still operate without cloud connectivity? How I envision it to communication to cloud is I could have ports 1-3 configured as VLAN 999 (ISP), with Port 1 connected to the ISP Modem, and Ports 2 + 3 connected to MX-A WAN 1 and MX-B WAN 1 respectively. Then I can have Port 7-8 on the switch configured as VLAN 1 (Management) as trunk ports and have them connected to a trunk on MX-A and MX-B, or alternatively connected to trunks on one of each of my downstream switches. Is there any issues with the approach of feeding the external Meraki breakout switches management traffic back down through the LAN to go out to the internet? Calling out @cmr here because you seem to be an advocate for using the external breakout switch method as I have seen you mention in other community posts, but not sure if you are always going with an unmanaged switch, or a managed Meraki one?
... View more
Sep 28 2020
8:44 AM
1 Kudo
@CarolineS it seems the Documentation Digest is no longer being tagged with the label so it broke the email subscriptions.
... View more
Sep 2 2020
10:05 AM
I enjoyed listening to this episode as it gave some insight as to a cellular roadmap for Meraki and what we can expect from these MG devices in the future. Right now my organization uses Cradlepoint LTE devices but this podcast may have convinced us to switch so that we can get all our cellular needs met and keep everything in a single pane of glass view.
... View more
Aug 13 2020
10:24 AM
I am having trouble actually running this app. It starts it and opens browser to localhost:3000 but lists as "Failed to compile" ./src/views/NetworkHome/NetworkHeader/btClientsDetailed.js Module not found: Can't resolve 'material-table' in 'c:\docstemp\Meraki-API-MutiOrg-Portal\src\views\NetworkHome\NetworkHeader'
... View more
Aug 12 2020
1:30 PM
I want to get the management interface settings (https://developer.cisco.com/meraki/api/#!get-network-device-management-interface-settings) but for all devices in my Org at the same time. I figure what I need to do is pull the inventory via API and then filter on just MX, Z3 and Z1 devices and then using the NetworkID's and Serial Number's iterate through all the devices using the call I mention above. Does anyone have a script that already does this or mind helping?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Dashboard API
Jul 6 2020
10:59 AM
1 Kudo
I think @jdsilva understands this entirely, he's just trying to get @LuigiJuve to arrive at that answer on his own.... 😃
... View more
Jun 16 2020
8:49 AM
2 Kudos
Very curious to tune in tomorrow and hear about what Meraki has cooking up for the shift we are seeing in our workforces beginning to primarily work from home. I know in my organization there is already talks about potentially never going back to the office lifestyle now that it has become apparent that associates can still be just as, if not more, productive while working remotely.
... View more
Jun 16 2020
8:43 AM
Is there any way to subscribe to Documentation Digest as a newsletter that is mailed out?
... View more
Jun 3 2020
9:58 PM
Sorry to re-hash an old thread, but on the topic of WAN breakout switches, I have always used a Cisco 8-port switch to break out an ISP that can only provide a single handoff. This switch is a simple configuration of a VLAN and we don't manage the switch any further and just deploy it. If it breaks we ship a new one with the same config. If I was to begin using Meraki 8-port switches for WAN breakout is it essentially the same concept? My concern is that having an MS120-8 upstream of my MX's will not work because they will not be able to communicate with dashboard. In addition to cabling the switch into my modem and both MX-A WAN 1 and MX-B WAN 1, would I also patch it in to the MX's or downstream switching on a trunk so the switch can be managed and communicate with dashboard? I understand I can just use spare switchports on the downstream switching to breakout my ISP connection instead of using a separate WAN breakout switch, but again my question is around a WAN breakout switch upstream of the MX's.
... View more
Nov 3 2019
1:54 AM
I am unsure about the ASA configuration, it is the clients. They provide us a 1:1 NAT for our WAN connection at this site. Public IP NAT'ed to the shared virtual IP for high availability MXes. The MX pair is going to be used for monitoring, security & content filtering, normal firewall stuff. There will be no AutoVPN's save for one that we would use for our Syslog VLAN to export logs to Splunk in our datacenter.
... View more
Nov 3 2019
1:23 AM
1 Kudo
But the VRF's (and the client switching environment) is downstream of my MX so they need to connect to the MX LAN ports. The MX WAN port is already connected to the client's ASA who is acting as a service provider for our internet at this site. Diagram for clarity:
... View more
Nov 3 2019
1:15 AM
I plan for this MX to be able to do it's own routing and serve as the DHCP server for various subnets (one for each downstream VRF)
... View more
Nov 3 2019
12:27 AM
@PhilipDAth, I see. That is really all I am trying to accomplish. I don't wish to incorporate the VRF's into my MX, I just wish for the traffic to remain segmented as the VRF's are doing downstream and have the traffic pass across to the MX and be tagged for the appropriate VLAN. So correct, access to each VRF is what I seek.
... View more
Nov 2 2019
10:45 PM
Hello! So what you are saying is that I should still setup my VLAN interfaces on the MX and make at least one access port for each of these VLANs. The client then needs to provide an ethernet handoff that passes that specific VRF across to the MX and ensure it is patched to the proper access port configured to be for the matching VLAN on the MX? Yes and then from their the MX can handle routing, I can make my own L3 firewall rules to deny inter-VLAN routing as I see fit and filter specific traffic to the outside world. Yes there will be no overlapping subnets in place here, all unique subnetting per-each VRF. If I am mistaking anything please let me know. Is there a way to condense multiple handoffs down to a single link? Perhaps the client can configure their interface closest to the MX as a trunk and somehow tag the VRFs with a VLAN ID to carry those VLANs across to a trunk port on my side? Forgive me if this is entirely incorrect, I have next to no experience with VRFs in practice.
... View more
Nov 2 2019
10:04 PM
Hi Philip, Thanks for replying! The choice to use VRF is not mine, it is the client's. They are not willing to allow me to put my own switches in their physical space and thus I must run on their Layer 3 switching environment. There should be no inter-vrf routing as the whole point of the topology is to keep traffic segmented. I should have mentioned that there is also a point-of-sale VRF in addition to the ones I mentioned prior, so in the interest of PCI compliancy we need to keep traffic from the cardholder data environment segmented. Let's take out the high-availability component for the sake of simplicity in this discussion. It then becomes a single MX per VRF? Can you elaborate any further on why an MX can't handle the pass off of multiple segmented VRF's?
... View more
Nov 2 2019
8:25 PM
Hey all, Hopefully this question hasn't already been asked but looking for some insight / advice on the following. I am being tasked with installing a pair of Meraki firewalls in high availability at a client site, and we are going to be using the clients switching infrastructure for our hosts on the network, and the firewalls themselves will live at the campus edge. The client uses almost no Layer 2 and are running almost solely with VRF's to segment traffic. They mentioned that they wish to create as many VRF's as necessary to mirror our VLAN scheme we presently use in other sites (CORP, IOT, Surveillance). I have little to no understanding as to how I should be configuring the firewalls to support this passoff of VRF's to the Meraki MX. On the MX I see I can create virtual interfaces tied to VLAN IDs so am I still to configure that in this scenario? Then do I just ensure that the client connects an Ethernet handoff configured for the CORP VRF they create to an access port on the MX configured for the CORP VLAN? When I create a VLAN virtual interface it automatically adds that route to that configured subnet to the route table so I don't think I need to do any static routing either to get this to work I wouldnt think. Also side note, if my thinking above is correct, does this also mean I could technically use a single ethernet handoff to a port on the MX I configure as a trunk to carry all the VLANs? Or will this not work because with VRF's traffic will not have a VLAN tag when it enters the trunk from the clients Layer 3? Any tips or recommendations are greatly appreciated.
... View more
Oct 16 2019
6:50 AM
Just want some clarification on best practice regarding interacting with third-party applications like Cisco Security Connector and Cisco Umbrella. Currently using my own API key to integrate with these apps. If this was for an actual company and I was to leave the company, or something of that nature, it may cause downtime in order to shift to the replacement hires API key. Would best practice be to setup a dashboard admin / dashboard user as a "service account" and use that accounts API key for third-party app integration? Does anyone have any tips around this?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Dashboard API
Jul 31 2019
8:41 AM
So scratch my previous response, I tried a larger batch (62kb) and I am back to 502 bad gateway. Have been trying to gzip my request and send as binary file in Postman but I keep ending up with "400 bad request: error in JSON you submitted". I am not doing anything fancy, I am just taking the JSON from the body in Postman and saving it as a JSON file and using gzip to compess it, then adding the gzip file in Postman and sending the PUT request. The gzipped file is 13kb. It just seems to mangle my JSON when it gets gzipped and Postman can no longer understand it, however I do notice Postman automatically adds some temporary headers when it detects a gzip file.
... View more
Jul 30 2019
10:34 PM
I took a look at action batches and gzip and both seem like they could have been valid solutions. My request size was 51.98kb. I was able to solve actually by updating Postman to V7.0+ and somehow this has allowed my request to process. Not sure what exactly changed there but I appreciate your suggestions @PhilipDAth
... View more
Jul 30 2019
5:32 PM
Hey all, Hoping someone might have some insight on an error I am getting in Postman. I am using the "Add, delete, or update the tags of a set of devices" endpoint and have modified it slightly so instead of using parameters in the URL, I am using JSON in the body instead simply because of the amount of MAC addresses involved for the scope of devices caused the URL to be too long. I have populated a bunch of fake MAC's below as an example, but in my real world test I am trying to add a tag to about 2000+ devices at the same time. Keep in mind this same PUT works if I trim it down to like 800 devices so I think I am hitting some sort of hard limit somewhere. Body { "updateAction": "add", "tags": "Test", "wifiMacs": "00:60:EF:26:15:FE,00:60:EF:1B:07:AE,00:60:EF:1D:91:C9,00:60:EF:1D:91:CA,00:60:EF:1D:D3:36,00:60:EF:1D:D2:AB,44:8E:12:02:67:37,00:60:EF:1D:CF:D9,00:60:EF:19:2F:F8,00:A0:A4:25:4E:39,00:A0:A4:21:BE:45,00:A0:A4:21:BC:F2,00:60:EF:1D:91:BD,00:60:EF:1D:D4:22,00:A0:A4:21:C0:20,00:A0:A4:21:BF:DF,00:60:EF:1C:18:99,00:A0:A4:21:BF:E8,00:60:EF:1D:D4:48,00:A0:A4:21:C0:4F,00:A0:A4:21:B4:D0,00:60:EF:1C:77:2C,00:A0:A4:21:BD:DF,00:A0:A4:21:C0:1C,00:A0:A4:21:BD:E5,00:A0:A4:23:6E:5F,44:8E:12:02:67:9A,80:D2:1D:99:08:39,00:A0:A4:20:86:AF,00:60:EF:1D:D3:11,00:60:EF:1D:D2:D9,00:60:EF:16:01:DD,00:50:56:01:07:66,00:60:EF:19:31:97,00:A0:A4:21:1F:BD,80:EE:73:DC:70:14,80:EE:73:DC:6F:87,00:60:EF:1E:2B:2B,00:60:EF:1D:D5:23,00:60:EF:1E:29:40,00:60:EF:1E:29:09,00:A0:A4:19:61:40,00:A0:A4:19:61:C1,00:60:EF:1E:29:34,00:60:EF:13:5E:BF,00:60:EF:0D:2D:02,00:A0:A4:19:FF:BD,00:60:EF:1D:D1:09,00:A0:A4:19:AD:C5,00:A0:A4:19:AD:79,00:60:EF:1E:2A:12,1C:EE:C9:01:50:AC,00:A0:A4:19:AD:7A,00:60:EF:1D:D3:C9,1C:EE:C9:00:F8:A4,00:60:EF:1D:E9:7E,00:60:EF:1E:2A:36,00:60:EF:1D:E5:53,00:A0:A4:26:26:6A,00:60:EF:1E:27:65,00:A0:A4:20:E4:EA,1C:EE:C9:01:05:50,1C:EE:C9:01:4B:C8,00:A0:A4:21:07:4A } Again in some cases I get a 502 Bad Gateway error, if I bump up the "Request Timeout in MS" setting in postman to around 200000+ I then get a 500 Internal Server error. Any advice on how to get around this would be appreciated. I know I can splice my data into chunks and just do it that way, but if I can just do it in one dump that would be great. I will have to continually keep doing this in the future. EDIT: Ignore all the smilies lol
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Dashboard API
May 3 2019
2:26 PM
Does this mean that if you split the camera network into a separate network, you can still have them using an uplink MX even if that MX is part of a different combined template network?
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 8 | 15536 | |
| 4 | 35114 | |
| 3 | 15502 | |
| 2 | 22877 | |
| 2 | 1661 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
