Hi, yes of course.    Ultimately I created static routes to the entire RFC1918 address space. Which had the result of pushing traffic destined for our MPLS network over the MPLS connection. Anything else then went via our local internet break out connection.    I decided against connecting the MPLS to a WAN port as we only currently have 1 pair of MX450 VPN MX concentraters, and didn't want to cause any additional latency and/or a bottle neck.    Works as it says on the tin. Simples.  ... View more

Agree re: no NAT beta version. However we're not an organisation prone to taking 'risks' such as using beta software. Should it ever make it to a stable version, then we're likely to be all over it.  ... View more

I used internet line into WAN 1, with MPLS into LAN port 1.   Created the Site to Site VPN and included the MPLS subnet into the VPN.   Created a static route pointing all traffic destined for any MPLS connection 172.16.0.0/12 (for example) via the MX MPLS subnet gateway IP address.    MX will always favour the static route over the VPN route. So no NAT'ing to worry about on MPLS traffic, say voice or other business critical apps that dislike NAT. Local breakout too, which speeds up things like office 365 over going through a central HQ/Datacentre.    We have the advanced security licence to help with security. In a nutshell, that's pretty much all I did.    Everyone's a winner. HTH.  ... View more

I was having the exact same problem. The issue was that the SSID firewall was set to allow clients local lan access. When I denied local lan access, it was as though the DHCP request was forced over the VPN and therefore the routing was corrected. It started working straight away.     ... View more

Thanks Tyler,   We have a MPLS network. DHCP server is located in 1 of our DC's which is connected to the MPLS network via resilient 100Mb circuits.  At one of our 450 remote sites (all connected via MPLS with centalised breakout) I have deployed an MX65.  MPLS provided router peers with the PE via a /32 loopback interface, they then advertise a /24 via BGP for us to use on the LAN.    When I physically connect the MX65 via internet port 1 to a LAN port on the Cisco router it indeed picks up an IP address from our DHCP server. The issue I have is, that when I configure one of the Meraki LAN ports to be in the same vlan as the routable /24 the devices do not pick up a DHCP reply. Packet capture can see the request hitting the DHCP server and the response coming back, but it hits the MX and then goes nowhere. I'm aware I can use the MX to manage DHCP, however it's not the way we want to go (for now at least).    As an example I have the MX WAN IP as .209 with the LAN IP as .210 with the default gateway on the Cisco router as .220.   | have spoken to the support team, and they advise that there needs to be a different subnet between the MX and the Cisco router.  I was just curious as to why this is the case, if indeed it is true.    Many Thanks     ... View more