Meraki

cmr · ‎Nov 22 2020

@PhilipDAth as long as the alerts act on both scales at the same actual point, I'd think it is good. We are in the UK but our parent company is in the US so different users would want the different scales. If the alerts aren't bi-temperate then it should be an overall setting as you said.

cmr · ‎Nov 18 2020

Beware the golf ball

cmr · ‎Nov 18 2020

MS390 - Adaptive policy, QoS, mGig port display fixes, dashboard client display fixes MSother - Group policy ACL Assorted bug fixes I'd have thought other new features, MS390 fixes will all be in this release train

cmr · ‎Nov 16 2020

@KV we run the setup you have proposed using Enterprise licensing. All we allowed was standard Meraki ports outbound from the VPN concentrator MX HA pair IP on our edge firewalls. We have currently a Z3, MX64 and MX65 all on different public networks, but being part of the corporate SDWAN, other MXs are on private MPLS WANs. Been working fine for a couple of months (public units) and rest running for over a year on the MX15 release train. The edge firewall vendor can make a difference, I've seen elsewhere on the forums that Palo Alto don't play nicely with ISP failover in this setup. Ours are fine and the Z3 etc. Survived 2/3 of our ISPs going down, leaving only the tertiary alive. Didn't even see an issue from their perspective.

cmr · ‎Nov 15 2020

Excellent write up @Bruce, I'll raise your 100VG-AnyLAN with ATM-25, an excellent end user networking protocol with built in QoS back in 1997... also steamrollered by the economies of Ethernet.

cmr · ‎Nov 13 2020

This firmware has now made it to Stable release candidate so those of you that need the fixes but don't want to try 14.x have a solution outside of contacting support 😎

cmr · ‎Nov 12 2020

@Anthonize have you used the Make a Wish feature in the dashboard, that is the best place to ask for new features

cmr · ‎Nov 11 2020

Yes we do that at our HQ, inter VLAN routing and off to the WAN all on stacked 210s (same software stack as 225s)

cmr · ‎Nov 10 2020

@Conxentra unfortunately not, you need proof of the original purchase from new. The only exception might be if the eBay company is a Cisco reseller. Unless one of the above is the case, then you are due a refund under eBay rules as they have not sold you what they advertised. If you used PayPal then the protection is good and the resolution process pretty fast.

cmr · ‎Nov 10 2020

@Conxentra claiming the device doesn't itself do anything to restrict the device's use. Having the device in a network is what stops it being claimed elsewhere. If a device is in a network that you don't have access to and you don't have any proof of the original purchase of the device, that device is now useless. If you have proof of original purchase then contact support who can reassign it to your organisation. Mad but true!

cmr · ‎Nov 9 2020

@HKillam I believe you need a business ISP connection. We use another vendors equivalent of Meraki's autoVPN connecting Egypt to the UK and in general it works well.

cmr · ‎Nov 9 2020

@DarrenOC wish I could give auto QoS trust .... more than one kudo! 😎

cmr · ‎Nov 9 2020

@imovaffagh the alternative is to ask support to convert the MX67 enterprise license to advanced, this will simply halve the license term.

cmr · ‎Nov 7 2020

Also the MS350 range includes mgig and UPoE whereas the MS250 does not

cmr · ‎Nov 7 2020

Now I agree with @KarstenI , just wanting to make sure everything else was in order!

cmr · ‎Nov 7 2020

If you have an MPLS WAN you have to tell the provider what networks you have at each site so their routing core knows where to pass traffic that it doesn't directly see. @KarstenI I believe the same applies here as how else would you or I know that @ArunKonkati's public network was behind the two WANs he has? I may be wrong as my technical training was in L1/L2, but I'd like to know how it can work otherwise.

cmr · ‎Nov 7 2020

Do both WANs know that the public IP subnet you have on the LAN is behind them? i.e. the service providers who supply the connections need to know that you have another subnet that you want the world to see. Normally they only advertise the ranges provided by them and without that the world will not know your MX LAN subnet exists. Even with NAT turned off the MX still routes so the outbound traffic works as the MX knows about the LAN subnet.

cmr · ‎Nov 7 2020

@ArunKonkati is the public IP on the LAN in a different subnet to the public IPs on the MX WANs? It needs to be unless you have the MX in passthrough mode.

cmr · ‎Nov 5 2020

@MerakiMed to enable an SSID to be selectively advertised, simply create a tag and apply it to those APs, then under the SSID availability set it to only be advertised when that tag is present:

cmr · ‎Nov 5 2020

Actually, even that doesn't work:

cmr · ‎Nov 5 2020

@PawelG indeed, you only appear to be able to *upgrade* to 27.5.11 from an out of date MR version as it is labelled as a previous bata, see below with a network running 27.5:

cmr · ‎Nov 3 2020

We have been running firmware 15.x for over a year now and our MX250 HA pair are currently on 15.37. We haven't seen any service affecting issues and you can always roll back.

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

Well done everyone, keep up the good work 👏 🥂🎉

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

Has anyone here actually seen issues with iSCSI switches that as mentioned above can happen? I ask as the switches we use are HP or Cisco 10-12 port ones for ~£800 each. We don't overload them but do have up to 7 ports connected with two being server only, three being server and storage and two being storage only. Data rates average about 400Mb/s writing but a lot of the data is video streaming so pretty constant rate. Reads are much less. The only issues we see are cabling issues with Dell 10GbE Cu ports not liking most cable connectors...

cmr · ‎Nov 2 2020

@mugrene If you are referring to an iSCSI switch then Meraki switches can handle that traffic, but it really does depend on how many servers and SAN nodes you have, along with the characteristics of each. The most common iSCSI switch requirements are jumbo frames (over 1500 bytes) and large buffers on each port. However we do have a number of iSCSI SANs and the vendor we use (Pivot3) does not use jumbo frames and as long as you have the hosts and storage nodes connecting at the same speed then the buffers are not so important.

About cmr

cmr

Community Record

Badges