Meraki

KarstenI · ‎May 27 2022

The same is shown on my MG41. The device reports 2.0 but the firmware page shows 1.11 as the actual version. Obviously a cosmetic bug that is around for a very long time. It was discussed here in the forum already a long time ago.

KarstenI · ‎May 21 2022

That link is really good!

KarstenI · ‎May 16 2022

I just configured the RF-profile of my MR44 to min20, max30 and guess what ... 12dBm based on the dashboard output. Can't measure it as I am not onsite.

KarstenI · ‎May 10 2022

Did you reconfigure the Webserver for the new subnet and the correct MX IP as the gateway? Can you reach the Webserver from the MX and vice versa? Can you reach the web server from the internal network?

KarstenI · ‎May 10 2022

You can specify which sources are allowed to use the configured NAT rule. It's also shown on the mentioned document with "remote IP".

KarstenI · ‎May 9 2022

A Splash-page can also be used with an SSID that is configured for PSK. You don't need a RADIUS-server, but there has to be an instance that delivers the splash-page (a web server) and a server that gives the feedback that the user interacted in the "correct" way with the splash-page. The later could be a RADIUS-server, but you could also use the Meraki cloud without a RADIUS-server.

KarstenI · ‎May 8 2022

You guys make it really hard for us to get into the top 4. Don't give up, just try harder ... 🙂

KarstenI · ‎May 8 2022

I would put the Pi into this DMZ-like network and run a proxy server on it. With that you don’t have to explicitly connect to the Pi wireless.

KarstenI · ‎May 7 2022

And don't forget a strict access-control from this VLAN as it is outside of your network.

KarstenI · ‎May 7 2022

Well done, as always! What a great community!

KarstenI · ‎May 6 2022

On the clients page we have the "Capable Wi-Fi standards" that indicates what the client can do. But I donÄ't think that we really can conclude that the actual connection is ax or ac. But it the client is capable of ax, it typically should be connected with ax. What I am missing more is the information if the client used WPA3 or WPA2 if I have enabled both on my SSID. Without this information I have no idea when it if time to really disable transition mode.

KarstenI · ‎May 6 2022

You can also use the internal Windows-server if available.

KarstenI · ‎May 6 2022

You need a DNS-server for this. A small VM or a Raspberry Pi will be enough for most environments. "unbound" is a linux package that can be used here. It can be very lightweight.

KarstenI · ‎May 2 2022

I think it's time to open a support case with Meraki.

KarstenI · ‎May 2 2022

"WAN interface obtained dynamic IP through PPPoE?" Yes, That is ok for the MX. *Remote peer is offline?" The MX has no knowledge if the remote side is offline or not. That is ok for every VPN-Gateway. Please capture on your LAN interface of the MX if you see the incoming traffic that should trigger the VPN. (traffic from local to remote LAN)

KarstenI · ‎May 1 2022

The dynamically obtained IP is fine. The IP subnets in your diagram and config do not match. Could that be the problem? Is your trigger traffic coming from the right subnet and does it reach the MX?

KarstenI · ‎May 1 2022

The question is if you see anything in the packet capture: 08:37:32.564434 IP 192.168.177.250.500 > 1.2.3.4.500: isakmp: phase 1 I ident If you don't see this, the problem is on your side. If you see it and nothing comes back, the problem is likely on the other side. Do you have your local subnet enabled for VPN? And not related to this problem, but to make it easier in the future: You should tag the network and use that Tag in the Availability field to restrict the VPN to this particular site.

KarstenI · ‎Apr 30 2022

Do a packet Capture on the.Internet-Port and then trigger the VPN with some traffic. Do you see any IKE communication? Is your peer configured with your temporary public IP? Is your Site-to-site outbound firewall allowing the traffic?

KarstenI · ‎Apr 29 2022

I also used 10gtek for quite some time. But they converted one of my MS120-8FP into a fixed 10Port copper switch … Now I don’t buy them any more.

KarstenI · ‎Apr 29 2022

the wireless roaming process in independent of the DHCP process. After the roam the PC has first to realise that the IP config has changed and then do a new DHCP. Your users won't like the IP department with this approach. Better to configure anything where the IP stays the same: https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Cisco_Meraki_Best_Practice_Design/Best_Practice_Design_-_MR_Wireless/Wireless_Layer_3_Roaming_Best_Practices

KarstenI · ‎Apr 28 2022

probably just a type: response = dashboard.organizations.getOrganizationDevicesStatuses(organization_id)

KarstenI · ‎Apr 25 2022

Aggressive Mode was removed in one of the late MX15 releases.

KarstenI · ‎Apr 25 2022

@SSAY-AXS "Power OFF Coffee Machine": But be aware of the fatal consequences for productivity this could have ... 😉

KarstenI · ‎Apr 22 2022

With one customer we started to switch off all switch ports that are not essential while non-working-time. This includes the ports pointing to the APs. Because the later gives alarms in the dashboard, we will likely migrate this to the deep power save mode that is now available via the API. All in all we save over 10 MWh per year. And I was choosing text as I had no idea how to dance this ... 😉

KarstenI · ‎Apr 8 2022

Just a guess: You have an SSID that is configured for "Meraki DHCP" and the traffic belongs to one of these WLAN users.

About KarstenI

KarstenI

Karsten Iwen

Community Record

Badges