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 wirednot
wirednot
Getting noticed
Member since Aug 21, 2017
10-21-2021
Community Record
33
Posts
7
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
04-22-2021
07:39 AM
Either I'm missing something, or Meraki does not have feature parity with Cisco on showing rogue clients- not just rogue APs but rogue clients that are connected to the detected rogue APs. Am I just not seeing it?
... View more
07-19-2019
08:52 AM
1 Kudo
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
03-29-2019
05:21 AM
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
05-29-2018
08:10 AM
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
05-21-2018
07:31 AM
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
05-10-2018
04:46 PM
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
05-10-2018
03:34 PM
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
05-10-2018
03:32 PM
Interesting. Could it be at 100 on local config page but show Gig in MX status GUI?
... View more
05-10-2018
02:45 PM
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
05-10-2018
12:44 PM
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
05-10-2018
12:29 PM
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
05-10-2018
12:25 PM
This is a new topology
... View more
05-10-2018
12:23 PM
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
05-10-2018
09:54 AM
sure, but it feels sleazy on some level. But then again, for the price of licensing, I could probably live with myself:)
... View more
05-10-2018
09:43 AM
Scenario: for the occasional conference/event, it's handy popping up small MX and a couple of APs. What's not handy? Paying for licenses for gear that sits on the shelf until needed. Would be nice if an X year license decremented on actual days used in this case somehow.
... View more
05-10-2018
09:34 AM
The rated throughput on the MX 90 is 500 Mbps for firewall, 250 Mbps for advanced security. I'm using one in simple bridge mode. Despite both interfaces on the MX and the NIC on the client device under test all connecting at Gig, the MX 90 is acting as a 100 Mbps +/- 10 Mbps bottleneck. Take the 90 out, throughput goes back up to almost full gig. The WAN uplink setting is for 500 Mbps, and there are no traffic controls whatsover set. It appears that the MX just doesn't deliver what spec says it should. Any thoughts or similar experiences?
... View more
02-09-2018
07:45 AM
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
02-09-2018
07:29 AM
Thanks for the kind words, CHAadmin. Are you syslogging the Meraki environment? If so, I may be able to help you.
... View more
02-09-2018
07:08 AM
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
02-09-2018
06:21 AM
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
02-09-2018
05:56 AM
Just noticed that a Meraki employee is recommending against the use of NAT mode- I find that odd!
... View more
02-09-2018
05:55 AM
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
09-19-2017
02:20 PM
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
09-12-2017
03:52 PM
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
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 65992 | |
| 1 | 5990 |
