Has anyone converted their org from advanced to enterprise? ... View more

Injectors are passive and do not regenerate the signal, they simply inject power. You'll need a switch, or you could go with a media convertor. Use fiber to extend the link, convert back to copper and inject. There may even be media convertors which provide PoE. ... View more

Kami - we did a very slow deployment of Meraki to kick the tires. Here was our basic approach: 1) add headends to data center to get remote Meraki networks onto the WAN 2) network team puts Merakis at their house to test various configs and stability 3) expanded testing to other IT units 4) install a Meraki MX at a "Cisco network" site to use as a backup WAN link for primary MPLS router 5) install Meraki MX/MS/MR at new small offices where the Meraki is faster, easier, and cheaper to deploy (business internet vs MPLS) We have halted here for now. For any larger sites we would need to make some internal changes regarding our management contract so our msp could support the larger sites. So far Meraki is working well, but if you are used to a lot of the advanced features you get in the Cisco gear, it may not be the right choice. You have to analyze how complicated your Cisco gear is and if Meraki offers all those bells and whistles. ... View more

I feel like we have taken a step backwards with the MX67/68. You can't shut a port, no port security, etc. ... View more

On the MX64/65 it disables the port, the link goes down. If the MX67/68 does not do this, then I think that is a poor decision. Either way, confirmation would be great. ... View more

Oh, here is the reply I received back in Nov 2018, similar to others: "Thank you for contacting Cisco Meraki Technical Support! Aaron, the MX67/68 series currently doesn't support port-based access policies using 802.1x. The feature set will be addressed in a future firmware upgrade when tested and released by our Development team. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!" ... View more

I asked about this when I first got the MX67/68 last year. It's one of the huge oversights in my opinion. I can't believe they did not have port security in a brand new device superseding an older model which did have the feature. This really needs to be enabled. ... View more

Thanks. I guess they sent the notice to select people. ... View more

Is there another Meraki party at CLUS like last year? ... View more

Just figured out the issue with my Z3 on AT&T, you need to specify"BROADBAND" as the APN. ... View more

If both MXs are connected to the same switch for internet, I presume your ISP/uplink is handing out two IPs? ... View more

Simple answer, make the SSID itself a EULA (all be it a short one) 😉 A more interesting point is you can track a users device without them joining your network and without their consent. Does GDPR apply if a user does not join your network, yet you can track their fairly precise location (Bluetooth logging)? ... View more

Ok, so single arm is really meant not to fully connected like a dual arm scenario then. Thx for the feedback 🙂 ... View more

I saw that statement, but they don't have a drawing for it. All the drawings are for dual-arm. Internet port to upstream uplinks, then a LAN port to west switch and a LAN port to east switch on each MX. If west switch fails, west MX is still primary but via link(s) to east switch.   Now, applying same logic to single arm. Meraki is using single arm for both LAN and WAN, so west Meraki to west switch and east Meraki to east switch. What about Internet 2, can you not do typical fully connected? That means if any one part of the west side fails then east side Meraki is now primary?   This was what I was thinking of for single arm fully connected (proposed in red):   ... View more

That makes a little more sense @PhilipDAth - I have had zero issues with direct connect, but was going to change with some new installs/upgrades since so many people spoke against it. But, I am not trunking multiple vlans across it.   Second question - am I blind or is there no design guide/recommendation for single-arm concentrator, warm spare, without direct connect? ... View more

Now, time to battle out the terms and conditions semantics 😉 ... View more

EGG FOUND! ... View more

I am. Is there another Meraki party? ... View more

Wow, I'm a total n00b. My test device on the Meraki network had the DSCP markings defined, but I wasn't seeing anything on the Cisco network side when inspecting. Apparently it helps if you select the "enabled" option located right above the markings.   Literally every other of my 140+ video units have it enabled, but some how my personal test device got flipped to disabled...lol   So I have confirmed that the MX will trust DSCP and pass it over the tunnel problem free with all other traffic shaping rules/features disabled.   Thanks everyone...LOL. I'm going to go hide in my corner now..... ... View more

Next question......how? LOL   I can't seem to find any documentation on trusting DSCP on the ports. ... View more

Hey guys, thanks for the responses, but I'm not sure that answer the core question. I'm not looking for the MX to do QoS necessarily, but for it to trust and pass DSCP markings.   I know the MX can remark and preserve markings, I have seen this in the pcap on the receiving end of the tunnel. The problem is this is something being written on the MX based on protocols/signatures, destinations, subnets, etc.   What I would really like to know is, can the MX maintain markings it receives on the LAN and preserve them through the tunnel?   My Cisco video endpoints apply DSCP 24 and 34 markings, and Cisco phones apply EF (DSCP 46), but I'm not seeing this on the far end of the tunnel. If I create the rule for SIP traffic to receive DSCP 34 this is received on the far end of the tunnel, but thats a signature/protocol based rule, and its applying DSCP 34 rather than preserving the existing markings the devices apply. ... View more