Just to give fair warning, in its current form,  it's a *very* limited support feature, and it's far from being something Meraki Support can recommend using. ... View more

I really would love to see this well documented by Meraki … ... View more

Agreed ... View more

To add on what is already said: If PPPoE is used on the WAN, the MTU is automatically adjusted for the overhead If you need a different WAN MTU, Support can set this for you. But this reduced MTU is not accounted for when using non-Meraki IPsec VPNs and you will certainly run into problems. ... View more

Enjoy the party @PhilipDAth  ... View more

Yes, these local functions will still work without dashboard-connectivity. ... View more

The most cost-effective option would be the MX67, which has 600 Mb/s of throughput. ... View more

Don't forget that Meraki ACL's are basically a collection of VACL's (VLAN ACL's).  So basically it's a giant port ACL that is applied to every port, depending on the input VLAN if defined. This means you can block intra VLAN traffic which is different from a RACL (routed ACL) you applied on your 3750 SVI. ... View more

Congratulations everyone ... View more

Yup, same here.  ... View more

Ahh, thanks, I can now see if I add a specific rule for IPV4 addresses the D changes to 4. ... View more

Ah, I see. Wanted to avoid the session breaking but you are right. The clients in middle and when going from one building to the next one will drop the session. We have some autonomous driving robots here that need wifi to work and when they lose wifi connection they stop until they get new wifi connection. ... View more

Dear All,   Support was able to update alle the AP. And it worked there was something with my portal or something not up to date what they resolved at the back end.   Thanks you all for the feedback and support.   With kind regards,   Kiran Avinash Ghisaidoobe ... View more

Have you considered using IPSK instead? https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Encryption_and_Authentication/IPSK_Authentication_without_RADIUS  ... View more

👍 ... View more

Just installing the Beta 15 is not enough. This feature is still in closed beta. I also wanted to try it and sadly it's not yet publicly available. ... View more

If you have just a single MX, you have no onsite servers and all your SVIs (default gateways) are handled by the MX, then I'd say you were fine to link all your switches direct to the MX, reducing hop count etc - in such a setup, there would be no loops to resolve and no advantage from ASIC-powered routing (in a L3 switch).   If you are using warm spare (dual MXs) I'd definitely go with @KarstenI 's recommendation;   aggregate your switches to a stack of two switches, then put resilient links in as per the Recommended Topologies section of the warm spare document that @alemabrahao linked - and use Spanning Tree to resolve loops as needed and 're-open' blocked links when required upon failure. ... View more

MX84 is impacted by a brief reset on certain config changes. It's always been present. This is in all firmware version release notes.     But if you're seeing it go down and never come back without doing a reboot that's a different issue. ... View more

How much separation do you need? And is it really only outbound traffic or also inbound? If it is only outbound, do you really need the old firewall or can you just configure a VLAN with the subnet of the old firewall and replace the old device? For Internet-access, PAT is done automatically when you send  traffic to the MX on a LAN interface. ... View more

I have yes thanks that does look ideal! - Unfortunately, it adds another £280.00 a month on top of the stuff I mentioned before to make a Zone redundant HA solution based on vMX compared to a VPN gateway which has this built in.   vMX would be my preference but it doesn't look viable in this scenario. Appreciate all the advice   ... View more

@GreenMan  mentioned as you start the process of claiming an order it shows you what the order contains, you can back out if the order isn't correct.  ... View more

@alemabrahao wrote: When a new switch stack is created, or a new switch is added to an existing stack, the below configurations will be removed from the stand-alone switch(es) and will need to be reconfigured on the stack: Link aggregates [...] Hah! That explains the recent f*ck up on a customer network I made, when guiding the customer to stack two switches, resulting in a loop. I honestly thought that it was the clean, unprovisioned switch introduced with redundant stack cables that made the loop, and brought everything down. ... View more

We have had STP not block properly with MX + MS though it works fine with Catalyst switches.  I haven't re-tried this config with MS15.x stacks yet. ... View more

Great, I do have a VLAN for both networks and the old 192 is isolated to one port.  Glad to know I got that part right.  I think the rest I need to do with Network Objects and Rulesets.  I think I found better documentation to clarify the rules/policy part.  We are used to using inbound rules which is where I think we were confused as Meraki has a different way of looking at firewall rules.  Thank You for verifying I am not wasting my time trying to do something I cant do with the firewall.  We were trying to apply rules to the port versus the subnet.  I think I am good. ... View more

But you only need profiling if you want the system to detect the type of device. If you are willing to classify your MAC-addresses into groups manually (or by import from a CSV where the mapping is available), the Essentials-license is enough. And that license is quite cheap. ... View more