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 starbuck
starbuck
Here to help
Member since Sep 25, 2017
06-08-2021
Community Record
12
Posts
2
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
04-18-2021
01:38 PM
I'm on shard n263 and I'm finding it painfully slow for over a month now. When I first enter the dashboard after a period of time away, and then click on a client it often takes 25 seconds to load the page. Once I'm then it seems to be a bit quicker?
... View more
11-01-2020
01:47 PM
1 Kudo
I presume this feature in iOS will also break policy settings on iOS devices right? So if I have certain users iPhones set to be whitelisted or have addtional bandwidth on our network, this will break that functionality, correct? Or is this going to be resolved by the fix coming in iOS 14.2?
... View more
04-30-2018
01:14 PM
We have started using a variety of shaping rules to help manage our bandwidth better across our two WAN links. I'd like to be able to see exactly how much data is flowing across the different uplinks, but in Traffic Analytics there is no option to show which WAN link was used? Is there anyway within meraki to get a better view of what/which and how much data is flowing across the different WAN links? The running graph of the usage by Uplink on my MX64 appliance status page is not giving me enough detail or resolution to analyze this.
... View more
10-30-2017
11:25 AM
Yeah, the Draytek's are awesome for that feature, but they are the only modem on the market that does that as best I can tell. The problem is they don't use Broadcom modem chipsets so they tend to have MUCH lower sync rates with ADSL in 'last-mile' / rural deployments. I tried a Vigor 130 and it only synced at 4.5mbps whereas a TP-Link modem using a Broadcom chipset syncs at 6.2mbps. So pretty big performance difference. That said, the TP-Link feeding DHCP to the MX64 seems to be working fine with no issues. I did put the internal IP for the MX64 in as the DMZ host on the modem and all my port forwards continue to work even when our primary WAN fails.
... View more
10-19-2017
11:16 AM
Thanks for this information. We don't have unlimited data each month so this is about data volume/quota management.
... View more
10-17-2017
12:48 PM
1 Kudo
I know because I actually tested it in real time. I have my iPhone assigned to a group policy that has layer 7 deny rules using the predefined 'Software Updates' option and also has http deny rules for the two apple domains as recommend in the meraki faq/blog post here: https://documentation.meraki.com/zGeneral_Administration/Other_Topics/Blocking_or_rate_limiting_iOS_updates I ensured that the policy had plenty of time to be active. I even disconnected my iphone from the network and rejoined to be sure and and then I tried to update the apps and they would update with no problem.
... View more
10-16-2017
05:05 PM
Apple App updates for iOS users are really soaking up a lot of our bandwidth and I'm looking for a way for to block our guest connections from being able to download all their iOS app dates. I tried blocking iOS updates as per the faq, but it doesn't seem to have any affect on AppStore App updates?
... View more
09-25-2017
11:10 PM
No RBI option for us. Already tried that approach 😉 So basically, what you are suggesting is a double-NAT, right? The ADSL modem get's the connection and serves up an internal address to the MX64 (e.g. 192.168.1.100) and then shares that connection on it's own internal LAN to the rest of the clients? And this will work...mostly? I feel like there are a few tips & tricks I need to employ to avoid any issues. Should I try to DMZ the internal IP getting assigned to the MX64? Should I setup port range forwarding to blast every port from the ADSL WAN to the MX64's issued LAN IP? In this situation there won't be any clients ever using the ADSL connection. I have a few servers and port forwarding setup on the MX64 so is there anyway to make that work in this double-nat arrangement? Or to make it 'mostly' work? Honestly, if I can have auto fail-over working and keep slack,skype, gmail, browsing, email, and dropbox running while we wait for the main WISP to come back online, that probably will be enough
... View more
09-25-2017
10:19 PM
No RBI option for us. Already tried that approach 😉 So basically, what you are suggesting is a double-NAT, right? The ADSL modem get's the connection and serves up an internal address to the MX64 (e.g. 192.168.1.100) and then shares that connection on it's own internal LAN to the rest of the clients? And this will work...mostly? I feel like there are a few tips & tricks I need to employ to avoid any issues. Should I try to DMZ the internal IP getting assigned to the MX64? Should I setup port range forwarding to blast every port from the ADSL WAN to the MX64's issued LAN IP? In this situation there won't be any clients ever using the ADSL connection. I have a few servers and port forwarding setup on the MX64 so is there anyway to make that work in this double-nat arrangement? Or to make it 'mostly' work? Honestly, if I can have auto fail-over working and keep slack,skype, gmail, browsing, email, and dropbox running while we wait for the main WISP to come back online, that probably will be enough
... View more
09-25-2017
10:18 PM
No RBI option for us. Already tried that approach 😉 So basically, what you are suggesting is a double-NAT, right? The ADSL modem get's the connection and serves up an internal address to the MX64 (e.g. 192.168.1.100) and then shares that connection on it's own internal LAN to the rest of the clients? And this will work...mostly? I feel like there are a few tips & tricks I need to employ to avoid any issues. Should I try to DMZ the internal IP getting assigned to the MX64? Should I setup port range forwarding to blast every port from the ADSL WAN to the MX64's issued LAN IP? In this situation there won't be any clients ever using the ADSL connection. I have a few servers and port forwarding setup on the MX64 so is there anyway to make that work in this double-nat arrangement? Or to make it 'mostly' work? Honestly, if I can have auto fail-over working and keep slack,skype, gmail, browsing, email, and dropbox running while we wait for the main WISP to come back online, that probably will be enough
... View more
09-25-2017
08:40 PM
No RBI option for us. Already tried that approach 😉 So basically, what you are suggesting is a double-NAT, right? The ADSL modem get's the connection and serves up an internal address to the MX64 (e.g. 192.168.1.100) and then shares that connection on it's own internal LAN to the rest of the clients? And this will work...mostly? I feel like there are a few tips & tricks I need to employ to avoid any issues. Should I try to DMZ the internal IP getting assigned to the MX64? Should I setup port range forwarding to blast every port from the ADSL WAN to the MX64's issued LAN IP? In this situation there won't be any clients ever using the ADSL connection. I have a few servers and port forwarding setup on the MX64 so is there anyway to make that work in this double-nat arrangement? Or to make it 'mostly' work? Honestly, if I can have auto fail-over working and keep slack,skype, gmail, browsing, email, and dropbox running while we wait for the main WISP to come back online, that probably will be enough.
... View more
09-25-2017
07:31 PM
Trying to test and install the MX64 in our network. We are connected via rural WISP using PPPoE so we can get the MX64 working for main connection. However, we often lose service and have to switch to a slower ADSL connection. I would like to configure this connection using LAN4 as a secondary Internet / WAN port. However, New Zealand uses PPPoA for their ADSL authentication. I tried using a Draytek Vigor 130 which can do a half-bridge scenario essentially converting a PPPoA connection to PPPoE. However, the Draytek chipset is very conservative and only will sync at 3.5mbps whereas our regular Broadcom based ADSL modem connects at 6mbps. I don't want to sacrifice all the bandwidth just to have load-balancing or fail-over via the MX64. Since our connections only tend to go down for short periods of time, is there any solution to configure the MX64's 2nd WAN port directly for PPPoA? Or what about doing something like a double-NAT? I hate double-NAT, but maybe that is my only option here?
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17808 | |
| 1 | 12264 |
