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 ahmadtat
Community Record
32
Posts
1
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Oct 23 2021
12:11 AM
Thanks for your reply.. is there any plan to allow more than 2 active WAN links in future firmware releases? as this could be a selling point in my opinion.
... View more
Oct 21 2021
8:09 AM
Hi, I see that the new MX devices (105 ) as example, has 2 x SFP+ WAN ports AND 2x 2.5GbE RJ45 (1x PoE+) does this mean that we can have upto 4 active internet links at the same time? are there any limitations in this case? like load balancing/ VPN tunnels, .... thanks
... View more
Sep 21 2020
3:29 AM
I think I'm biggining to get better picture on whats hapenning, in ios 14 , there is a new feature called (private address) as per below link: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211227#:~:text=Open%20the%20Settings%20app%2C%20then,a%20privacy%20warning%20explains%20why. this will create a different MAC address for iphone wireless users when joining the SSID which will trigger the conflict detected alert is there anything Meraki can do to avoid such false positive conflict alerts?
... View more
Sep 21 2020
3:05 AM
Hi, I'm seeing strange behavior in multiple Meraki networks acorss different organizations for the past week or so. where I'm receiving numerus alerts of IP conflict detected ... there is only MX devices (DHCP enabled) in those setups, no other DHCP server is working, and no static IP addresses is assigned ! mostly from IP addresses of iphones (I've confirmed that couple of these iphones are updated to ios 14) anyone else having this issue? is there something I need to check?
... View more
Sep 9 2020
2:50 AM
Hello, This is a hypothetical question, in case of 5 stacked switches MS225 (using physical stacks) the third switch from the top failed (let's say power failure) will the remaining 2 switches below be still stacked and function properly? or if a switch in the middle failed will cause the rest of the switches to get disconnected from the STACK? appreciate your feedback.
... View more
Aug 21 2020
4:11 AM
anyway we can load balance between the 2 MXs in case of WAN1 in MX1 failed? since WAN links are configured as load balancing... my point is to utalize the WAN connections in MX2 in case any of the WAN links failed in MX1 (in case of load balancing)
... View more
Aug 21 2020
4:00 AM
Great! how will the WAN failover work in case WAN1 in the Active MX (MX1) fails? is there anyway the (standby) MX WAN 1 will go active if the MX1 is still reachable? plz share as much details as possible.
... View more
Aug 21 2020
3:51 AM
Hi, is there anyway this scenario will be applicable for MX84 models (or any other MX model )? MX1 , WAN1 = ISP A MX1 , WAN2 = ISP B MX2 , WAN1 = ISP C MX2 , WAN2 = ISP D Much appreciated.
... View more
Jul 23 2020
4:17 AM
thanks @JimmyPhelan for your reply. your suggestion of Site to Site VPN is the more appropriate one as the 2 organizations have existing networks and cant merge (for political and security reasons) I read the link you shared, I didnt get the below point: "This process would need to be repeated for each remote/local MX pair as desired. The image below shows an example of an MX to MX VPN connection when the devices are in different Organizations" So if there's one site (added to "organization A" for Auto-VPN), we would need to add the public IP of that particular site in "Organization B" Third Party VPN peer? and in this case, "Orgnzation A" other sites will be able to reach "organization B" sites?
... View more
Jul 23 2020
3:33 AM
Hello, if we have 1 site with Meraki MX in it, and the requirements is to connect this site to 2 different organizations that has Meraki SD-WAN appliances (ERP application in one organization, IP telephony in the other) how can this be achieved using 1 Meraki MX onsite?
... View more
Feb 25 2020
8:23 AM
Can you please share more details on the transit subnets design you are suggesting?
... View more
Feb 25 2020
3:57 AM
Thanks @CptnCrnch for your reply. in your suggested scenario, do you think there will be a conflict in IP for LAN interface for the MX? since there will be the same subnets in 2 different Meraki networks.. appreciate your feedback.
... View more
Feb 25 2020
3:29 AM
Hi, We have a case as below: Head office has 4 internet connections, 2 of them are connected to the Meraki MX84 . in other sites (5 other branches) has MX64 in each site with internet access. we use SD_WAN features to connect all sites through Auto-VPN feature in Meraki MX devices. in Head office, there is a very heavy usage for VPN to multiple sites for accessing specific DVR devices (all the time) in remote branches. which is consuming the internet bandwidth .. So, the question is: can we add another MX device in Head office and connect different internet connections to it so that this MX will be responsible to handle connections to those specific remote DVRs? assuming that in this case, the same remote sites will be connected to 2 MX devices at the same time .. can a network in Meraki dashboard handle 2 different MX devices connected to same branches and we do the routing to route traffic to the DVRs through one of them only? and remaining VPN traffic to go through the old Meraki device in HQ? I hope I explained the scansion well.. appreciate your feedback.
... View more
Aug 8 2018
8:20 PM
Hi, I was reading and came across this article.. https://bgr.com/2018/08/08/wi-fi-password-hack-new-attack-breaks-wpa2-network-security/ Are meraki access points immune to this kind of attack? Thanks
... View more
May 29 2018
3:23 AM
Just wanted to update you that phones started registering now ! that's the weirdest thing.
... View more
May 29 2018
2:00 AM
BTW, from Meraki dashboard, the SIP traffic (5060) seems to reach from Riyadh to HQ in Jeddah as per below .. am I missing something?
... View more
May 29 2018
12:24 AM
this is a link for cap from the CUCM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qzbdylai4h16ods/CUCM.zip?dl=0
... View more
May 29 2018
12:19 AM
Here is a packet capture yesterday: 574 May 28, 2018 08:41:00.678529000 PDT 37.237312 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP 51236 → 5060 [SYN] Seq=0 Win=29200 Len=0 MSS=1460 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=44284081 TSecr=0 WS=16 78 575 May 28, 2018 08:41:00.715240000 PDT 37.274023 1 192.168.60.250 10.50.2.96 TCP 5060 → 51236 [SYN, ACK] Seq=0 Ack=1 Win=14480 Len=0 MSS=1192 SACK_PERM=1 TSval=3380312915 TSecr=44284081 WS=128 78 576 May 28, 2018 08:41:00.716054000 PDT 37.274837 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP 51236 → 5060 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=29200 Len=0 TSval=44284085 TSecr=3380312915 70 577 May 28, 2018 08:41:00.788916000 PDT 37.347699 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 SIP Request: REGISTER sip:192.168.60.250 (remove 2 bindings) | 925 578 May 28, 2018 08:41:01.019341000 PDT 37.578124 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP [TCP Retransmission] 51236 → 5060 [PSH, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=29200 Len=855 TSval=44284116 TSecr=3380312915 925 579 May 28, 2018 08:41:01.259307000 PDT 37.818090 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP [TCP Retransmission] 51236 → 5060 [PSH, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=29200 Len=855 TSval=44284140 TSecr=3380312915 925 579 May 28, 2018 08:41:01.259307000 PDT 37.818090 1 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP [TCP Retransmission] 51236 → 5060 [PSH, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=1 Win=29200 Len=855 TSval=44284140 TSecr=3380312915 925 744 May 28, 2018 19:18:27.803948000 PDT 35.778795 10.50.2.96 192.168.60.250 TCP 49336 → 5060 [RST] Seq=1 Win=0 Len=0 40 where 192.168.60.250 is the CUCM in Jeddah, KSA and 10.50.2.96 is one IP phone in Riyadh , KSA what can you get out of this ?
... View more
May 29 2018
12:14 AM
Actually, no.. it's separate call managers each! and I contacted the Meraki support and we tried reducing the MTU of the MX's to 1400 and 1300 but no change in the results. What else should we look for? That's realy critical as it does not affect customers who has MPLS connectivity ! only customers who has MX with VPN over internet connections.
... View more
May 28 2018
7:23 AM
Hi, We're facing a very strange issue with multiple organizations, different customers, different MX models, starting from Friday 25/5/2018 all customers who have Cisco Call Manager (different versions) which have the Call Manager in a city Not Riyadh, and use Cisco Meraki MX for VPN connectivity suddenly lost the ability for the Cisco IP Phones to register to the call Manager from Riyadh City in Saudi Arabia. the ISP's are different, different connections methods (fiber/DSL), different MX models , same firmware of MX with other branches that are located in Saudi Arabia (other branches are working perfectly fine). The only two common things are: 1) all clients (organizations) have Meraki MX to connect their branches together as VPN. 2) this issue is happening only in Riyadh City in Saudi Arabia (again, different ISPs and different connection methods) Have anyone faced this issue? can anyone guess what could be the reason?
... View more
Dec 16 2017
5:48 AM
@PhilipDAth thanks .. We did as per the picture.. Jabber registered and able to make calls but Not able to hear the other end ( & the other end cant hear us as well) .. are there any other RTP ports needed for this or other ports to be forwarded?
... View more
Dec 12 2017
11:30 PM
Hello, We have a case that need is to allow Cisco Jabber to be accessible from out side of the network. For that, we’re following the cisco guide. https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/expressway/config_guide/X8-1/Cisco-Expressway-IP-Port-Usage-for-Firewall-Traversal-Deployment_Guide-X8-1.pdf the idea is to allow Jabber clients register to the on premise cisco call manager. The optimum scenario (in other firewalls) , is to configure the Edge Expressway server as a DMZ client behind the firewall so that whenever the public IP of the firewalls is requested, it’s forwarded to the DMZ client (the edge expressway server). Unfortunately, the Meraki MX does not have a ready to use DMZ client straight config. So we need to configure port forwarding as per the attached requirements from Cisco. When we try to do it, the MX refuse to save and says the source ports and the dist. Ports should be in the same range! How do you suggest we resolve this issue knowing that the ISP only provided one public IP (used for the MX wan port) with no extra spare public IP to be used. Appreciate your inputs...
... View more
Dec 4 2017
9:52 PM
@PhilipDAth so the physical failover will be the way to go? No auto failover workaround in such scenarios?
... View more
Dec 4 2017
9:49 PM
@Chris_M Unfortunately, the ISP provided only a single IP address (not two) , hence this way will not work.
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
