Came to say exactly the same thing 🙂 Love the feature, but that is really annoying. The other one, is that there is no <None> option for the Port Profile - if you were to set a profile and disable it later, the profile sticks.   So my practice so far.. (because I cannot deal with seeing the inconsistency) 🙂   - Before you apply a profile (or if you already have one, and things are out of whack) - When you edit port or group of ports - you can toggle profile disabled, then adjust the values to what you want to see, then toggle profile on and save it.. (that will keep them looking the same initally) - But kind of defeats purpose of profile (when you change it later, it'll be out again) So I think best idea, is create a Default profile Make that something that wont change. I.e. Trunk vlan 1 or whatever your standard is Apply that to all ports + updating the non profile config as above. Then apply your real profiles to ports. Your values will be out of sync, but we know this, so hide them in the port list, and look at profile only (or drill in). And any ports that have disabled profiles - you can set to Default The issue I had with the profiles showing, means that if you filtered on profile, you could find ports that had a profile, but are not enabled now. Anyway, they are my work arounds for now 🙂 ... View more

Hi everyone! It was hectic, did not get a chance to say thanks for sharing info and experiences here! We upgraded to 29.2 beta, and we made a few other small adjustments over a period of time. It's a dynamic high density co-working space, so it's hard to gage completely, but I think it contributed to a better user experience all round, and we had no new big issues arise.   Cheers,   Tim ... View more

Hey all, Anyone running 29.2 in high density? or medium density? We are on 28.6 right now. (MR56, MR30H, MR42 mainly). ... View more

Hey all, Anyone running 29.2 in high density? or medium density? We are on 28.6 right now. (MR56, MR30H, MR42 mainly). ... View more

Hi @NolanHerring - curious to know if you ever found out more about switching the behaviour back.   I've submitted your make a wish too.. great idea. ... View more

Did anyone ever get any more information about the actual event: "Channel changed to improve network performance" It seems proactive to optimise.. It's not channel jammed - there is another event for that where AutoRF will change chan It's not DFS - there is another event there too.. I've found a few posts about this.. One of them mentions that Support can revert some of the aggressiveness of the AutoRF changes.. I.e. don't change it while clients are active (apparently this used to be the old behaviour).   There was also the suggestion of having an AutoRF freeze / black out period (makes a lot of sense to me).   I've got a case open and have asked these questions, will see how we go.   Curious to know if anyone else is having similar problems still? ... View more

I've been wondering about this recently. I wonder if there is anything on the roadmap?   I want to apply Policy to the User (and their clients/devices). Not using AD, not using external RADIUS. Using built in Local Meraki Database. I was surprised, I couldn't see a Group Policy option on the user itself.   I know there are lots of alternatives.. but in some small deployments. Local Meraki DB is nice, and it would be nicer for the client to not have to purchase a 3rd party solution (especially when they don't have AD, and don't want to use Captive Portals)   Can anyone from Meraki comment?     ... View more

Thanks Bruce.   Yeah I think the problem I had in the past was that list of NBN compatible hardware. Telstra was supplying Netgear routers (with VDSL modem built in) with their own firmware - and you couldn't actually get in and convert it to bridge mode. This was a while back, but I remember opening the admin page for it, and the bridged option was there, and then it disappears.. so I guess the factory firmware supported it - and they had disabled it for some reason. With the VDSL device terminating the layer 3, we'd have to NAT everything through to the MX. I don't love the idea of this with VPN and just double NAT in general. I'd much rather the MX was terminating the layer 3 connection.   Did you have a good supported device you were using in bridged mode? ... View more

Super old post, but looking at a few things here.   I have my MX64 and everything connected to NBN Fixed Wireless via Aussie Broadband. Definitely as you've said it's more limitations of the Fixed Wireless likely to affect us. There is no business grade level of service available to upgrade to, all the same kind of SLA's etc. So LTE if available would be a good backup option.   Our service can be a little patchy - I think it's just congestion mainly on the NBN Wireless side. Supposedly the ISP can check and tell you if your area is congested before you go ahead (but I didn't get much info back here) - we also didn't really have any alternative - except Sat (SkyMesh or maybe Elon's new one!) From what I've seen, the Fixed Wireless is still a lot better than SkyMesh.   Sorry to hijack a little, but curious on your FTTN setup? Do you have a OneAccess NTD, then a supported NBN box, then your MX? Or do you have your MX hooked straight up to their NTD?     ... View more

Has this changed location? Is it still available? ... View more

So change link type was actually on the ISP side.   We have a National Broadband Network (NBN) here. It runs their own voice on it as well. I guess they only want to prioritise their own voice traffic. And instead of remarking other traffic down - they actually dropped it.   So my comments weren't about your DSCP markings getting stripped It was more about how the ISP treats different DSCP markings.   I'm not sure in the US whether any of the carriers do this. But just thought it was worth checking. ... View more

Not sure on your location. But a funny one that popped up here in Australia. ISP was actually dropping the RTP media packets that were marked up with DSCP EF on certain links. So we actually needed to change link type, or scrub the DSCP values. ... View more

Very cool @PhilipDAth   We've done some of this with CSR1000V - and that's pretty much standardised approach on that platform now.   Curious to see if you've been running your solution in production - and how you have found it?   I feel like it's really not worth putting any production stuff into AWS unless it runs on two AZ's. And I don't want to have to press any buttons manually of course.   Cheers,   Tim. ... View more

Hi @GeorgeB - I hadn't seen the sensor crop feature. This looks good, I'll try it out!   Is there any information on what that would translate to from a traditional CCTV identification requirement? i.e. identification possible from X to Y meters? ... View more

Hey guys,   Looks like the MV21/71 mounts are not compatible with the MV12 And there is basically only a wall mount or ceiling mount plate included. I'd like to get some arms to get them off the walls a little bit in this deployment.   I'm also curious about what this means for the MV21 It has a 5MP processor right, but only does 720p It was nice and flexible to have the 3-10 vari focal lens in there.   The FOV is also pretty wide - even on the N. Looking at some traditional CCTV units that have an option to flip the 16:9 round, so you can shoot it down a corridor. This seems like a nice feature.   But I digress. Mounting options anyone? 🙂   Cheers, Tim ... View more

That would be awesome. ... View more

Motion detection working like a champ on our MV21! Still waiting to get my hands on an MV12 to play with analytics 🙂   Cheers,   Tim ... View more

Ah yes, just tried - it won't let you forward that as 1:1.   Cheers,   Tim. ... View more

Hi Steven,   I'm not sure I follow why it's different before and after.   You have 1 x public IP from the ISP They hand off a link to you from their manage firewall (on private IP's) They are doing a 1:1 NAT from the public IP to the private IP of your ASA external interface You are doing a 1:1 NAT on the ASA from external to internal   You seem to have a second IP in the mix on the proposed MX - like the ISP may be natting multiple public IP's to you perhaps? Is something changing on that front, or you want to just do like for like?     Cheers,   Tim ... View more

Thanks @jared_f ! ... View more

Hi David,   It would definitely need to be a 1:1 bi-directional NAT, so CUBE uses same address outbound. I can put SIP profiles onto CUBE that swap the public and private addressing, but it's not a clean option.   I have not had a chance to test yet. But I was wondering if we could create a DMZ with public IP's. I was going to see if I could configure a NAT rule that basically uses the same IP as outside and inside. I.e. Public ip 1.1.1.1 to Private ip 1.1.1.1 Then I was going to put that 1.1.1.1 in a DMZ.   It looked like it let me configure it, but I'm not sure if it will actually work yet.   Cheers,   Tim. ... View more

Yep, some nice improvements there. Still Cisco cloud based currently.   Cheers, Tim.   ... View more

Hi guys,   Azure announced now too! https://meraki.cisco.com/products/appliances/vmx100   Would be nice to see it on VMWare next   Cheers,   Tim ... View more