Just ran into this. It's inexcusable to have to reboot the MX just to clear ARP. Really clueless on Meraki's part. ... View more

Any updates to this? I just ran into this after relocating switches that were daisy chained. It’s pretty ridiculous that hardware at this price point and sold as enterprise gear can’t be shown with its current topology as that topology changes. Time to write a shame blog.   ... View more

It is set to the max of 500 Mbps. Every test I throw at this (and I have deployed a lot of MXs in the last nine years) says that this MX is not living up to spec. ... View more

Back from vacation- I did check the admin pages- there is no option to "nail" the interface to Gig- auto is only choice. For 100 and 10 you can specify duplex etc, but for Gig, auto is it. Given that the MX shows no stats or counters (which is complete BS after all of these years) and the switch side reports Gig with no errors, I have to assume that all is well at Gig between MX and switch. This is further evidenced by what follows:   On the advice of TAC support engineer- turned off advanced security and retested. Throughput is essentially doubled, now in the neighborhood of 225 Mbps. Still less than half of what's expected on the MX90 firewall throughput capacity.  ... View more

Think inline L2 bridging firewall. @Adam wrote: @wirednot wrote: Not at all. Not leaving local network, and as I mentioned you take the bridge mode MX out and the connection goes back to near gig traffic. Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly but when you are in bridge mode wouldn't the gateway move off of the MX to a different device?  Where is your gateway?  Possibly L3 switch?  If the gateway is on a Layer 3 switch then the traffic shouldn't even be traversing the MX regardless of what mode it is in.  You said LAN based traffic, how are you testing the throughput, iPerf?   ... View more

Think inline L2 bridging firewall. @Adam wrote: @wirednot wrote: Not at all. Not leaving local network, and as I mentioned you take the bridge mode MX out and the connection goes back to near gig traffic. Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly but when you are in bridge mode wouldn't the gateway move off of the MX to a different device?  Where is your gateway?  Possibly L3 switch?  If the gateway is on a Layer 3 switch then the traffic shouldn't even be traversing the MX regardless of what mode it is in.  You said LAN based traffic, how are you testing the throughput, iPerf?   ... View more

Interesting. Could it be at 100 on local config page but show Gig in MX status GUI? ... View more

Not at all. Not leaving local network, and as I mentioned you take the bridge mode MX out and the connection goes back to near gig traffic. ... View more

I have MX 64s, 65s, 80s, 84s, 90, 100, 250, and 400s- this is the first of seen of this, but also the first time I'm using an MX in bridge mode. Not sure if there is anything related to what I'm seeing, but it's extremely easy to show the defect condition right now. ... View more

14.x is beta- absolutely won't run beta here for fear of Cisco code culture of suck having settled in to Meraki. ... View more

This is a new topology ... View more

If I do, it's on the MX side where you can't see what's really going on. GUI says 1 Gbps for that interface, and its absolutely 1 Gig on uplink ... View more

sure, but it feels sleazy on some level. But then again, for the price of licensing, I could probably live with myself:) ... View more

Unfortunately, I don’t know about any cloud-hosted syslog servers. It is disappointing that the NAT records are not part of Meraki event logs- that’s a big black hole. ... View more

Thanks for the kind words, CHAadmin. Are you syslogging the Meraki environment? If so, I may be able to help you. ... View more

Beyond roaming- I have no concerns with any of the limitations. Bonjour is $hit, shouldn't be used on business networks to begin with, Fastlane is a gimmick, we generally avoid multicast on the WLAN. Still curious about the "high load" thought- given that CPU/memory can't be really seen. ... View more

Hmm. ... View more

Interesting- many years ago (over 😎 I was assured that there was no concern with using NAT on APs (beyond roaming). I'm curious what "high load" amounts to in your context. I have around a dozen branch sites, and public IP space is absolutely at a premium for clients (our branches share Class B public IP with our main campus) and the NAT functionality has been generally transparent and tremendously helpful. Roaming no worse than on our Cisco campus network, generally. Good clients switch quick, draggy clients drag. But- no VoIP for us either.   When I hear that "you shouldn't use it" my first thought is why does Meraki not message that responsibly right on the UI? ... View more

Just noticed that a Meraki employee is recommending against the use of NAT mode- I find that odd! ... View more

I'm using NAT mode on Meraki APs, and use Syslog to find my issues. It's not a one step process- you can usually find the trouble flow between the destination address and the AP itself (the "outside address" for the AP NAT, hopefully with timestamp. Then... you search on destination address and 10.x addresses that the AP is handing out- possibly with the AP Name as well. It's clunky but far from impossible, but it does suck that Meraki does not provide syslog as well if it's going to do everything else... I use Splunk, and as long as you're willing to do a few steps and can keep it all straight, you can certainly work within the NAT as well for sleuthing around. ... View more

Is really no specific thing I have in mind, just something that negates the dollars left on the table from orphaned licenses. Your example is certainly better than the current alternative. ... View more

Thanks, all that I get. I'm talking about removal and retirement of a device, with active license left. Not simply repurpose of a device. Been a Meraki customer since long before Cisco aquisition, and get all the things you CAN do. I'm talking about orphaned licenses that will run out unused. ... View more