How to restrict client VPN with Layer 3: https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Client_VPN/Restricting_Client_VPN_access_using_Layer_3_firewall_rules ... View more

@SoCalRacer It get too hairy to work this work. Also refer to this:   https://community.meraki.com/t5/Security-SD-WAN/Feature-Request-Apply-group-policies-to-Client-VPN/td-p/18637   ... View more

Any idea of the filename and location on a PC? I should be able to get the file if I know exactly which file. ... View more

Yep, got inundated with warnings from all my sites. ... View more

https://meraki.cisco.com/blog/2019/04/evolving-the-wireless-experience-again/   To learn more about our new Wi-Fi 6 APs please follow this link to our on-demand webinar, and to share your thoughts on the future of wireless there’s no better place than the Meraki Community. See you online!   https://meraki.cisco.com/products/wireless#models   ... View more

See: https://meraki.cisco.com/blog/2019/04/recap-meraki-quarterly-april-2019/   We also announced during the Quarterly that public betas are now available for an integration between the MX and Cisco Umbrella (similar to the just-launched MR/Umbrella integration) and for IKEv2. The latter includes support for route-based VPNs and stronger encryption algorithms for non-Meraki VPNs. To enable these betas, get in contact with Meraki Support.   So, it is available on Beta now!!!! Anybody testing it? ... View more

One major feature is the the builtin WiFi in MXs will not mesh of work as a "seamless" SSID with other MR in the same network, the SSID on the MX will appear as "separate" to the SSID of the MRs even though you may name them the same.   https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Wireless_Mesh_Networking     ... View more

@GeorgeB what distances would you recommend to consider an external illuminator? ... View more

Ran a test with my own network here.   MX84 Firmware 13.36 WAN is 400mbps/400mbps Client PC I use for testing on USB-C connected ethernet port.   First test with Uplink configuration set at 400 Mbps on the dashboard: Speedtest: 2ms ping, 170Mbps download, 363Mbps upload   2nd test with Uplink configuration set at "down" 100Mb/s and "up" 25Mb/s on dashboard using "detail: Speedtest: 1ms ping, 90Mbps download, 33Mbps upload   3rd test with Uplink configuration set at 50 Mbps on dashboard: Speedtest: 1ms ping, 33Mbps download, 88Mbps upload   So, I can probably conclude that the "Uplink configuration" work to some extend to the speed limit as configured in the dashboard even though you may have a higher bandwidth WAN uplink.     ... View more

I am seeing similar thing on my network:                                           Does Sonos devices caused STP issues since they are connected via ethernet and also WiFi?   ... View more

What if you apply a traffic shaping rules with custom expressions to limit the bandwidth to the desired level? That way, not too much fancy traffic shaping rules are required.             ... View more

This may be of assistance if you have not seen it already:   https://create.meraki.io/build/purple/   ... View more

We want Meraki MX to have IKE V2.   https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/vpn-gateway-about-vpn-devices   Meraki still listed as "Not compatible". ... View more

@Bruce Thank you. I missed out on the "you'll also need to configure DHCP forwarding for that VLAN/subnet" step. ... View more

Only Port 11 and Port 12 are PoE capable. So, only maximum of 2 connected to ports 11 and 12 can be drawing PoE.   Can you show the dashboard of your MX65 ports? ... View more

@ClaytonMeyer wrote: Nolan is correct but there is more necessary configuration. You'll need to make sure that all of the corresponding AP switch ports are configured as trunk ports. You'll need to trunk/tag VLANs 100-400 on those ports. Lastly, if the AP itself is in a separate "management" VLAN e.g. 2, you'll need to make VLAN 2 the native VLAN on those switch ports. Also, make sure that the uplink ports from those switches are also tagging those VLANs all the way back to wherever the SVI exists.   Mode: Trunk Native: 2 (example) Trunk: 100, 200, 300 400   So your clients' traffic will get tagged for their respective SSID and then that traffic will be properly handled at the switch level. @ClaytonMeyer Tried that even before I posted in the community. I can see devices can associate with the SSIDs but DHCP request fails if the DHCP server is on the MX or a Windows Server. DHCP request from the APs are working. Exploring further, Say, at Ground Floor, I have sub_tenant_A and 1st Floor sub_tenant_B. I have 4 APs on 1st Floor and 2 APs on Ground Floor. 4 x SSIDs configure on the APs (tenants and tenants_guests). When an end device is associated with the AP on Ground floor, choosing the SSID for sub_tenant_A works fine but not if choosing SSID for sub_tenant_B while associated in ground floor. Cannot get DHCP IP allocations. Vice versa. Guests SSIDs are fine anywhere.   Giving up, I just turn off the SSID for sub_tenant_A for the APS in 1st Floor and vice-versa. Workable solution but not elegant.   ... View more

@Qing wrote: Thanks for your kind reply. But if the environment radio interference is high, then have to use fixed 100% power, right? if the environment there is another wireless access point (different wireless network), what is minimum distance required between our AP and that AP?  Settings power tx at 100% is not a good practice. I quote somebody's comments:   I'll figure out what my best TX Mode is". It means FULL POWER! Maybe they have future plans for the Auto mode, who knows. Your WiFi with an AP set to max transmit power is a bit like having a meeting with a very loud person. If anyone is shouting his/her words out the rest of the attendees will have a hard time getting their say, and will probably feel a bit uncomfortable as well. This is kind of what happens when your AP is screaming at your clients. They will have a hard time getting their say and your throughput will go down. Turning my TX Power down made things a lot better. I settled on putting 2.4Ghz on low and 5Ghz radios on Medium which gave me the best results, don't forget to experiment with this.  I was now starting to get pretty stable downloads at around 200Mbps on ac..."   taken from https://www.douglasisaksson.com/lessons-learned-from-deploying-a-unifi-network-at-home/   Sorry, not Meraki-related but I think lessons learnt is mostly applicable with any brands of WiFi APs.   ... View more

@John_D wrote: I shows as active with a laptop, but an access point or camera, it does not work @John_D may I ask what brand and model of AP and camera have you tried connecting to the ports?   ... View more

@DFWGuy wrote: I think that i am going to grab one of the MX64W models that I had for a clinic location and use it in my home office. That will save me dealing with the WiFi AP device set-up which is a layer for me. I know that the MX64W is largely a plug/play device and I have been into the dashboard, etc already. MX64W is ideal for small businesses or home office such as a clinic. But note that if you need to add additional APs to the network, the SSIDs and other WiFi settings are separate from the MX64W. ... View more

  @NolanHerring wrote: I might be missing something, but I don't think you need to port-forward if your have a tunnel setup already between the sites. You should be able to reach devices between the sites. This is not the issue of "internal" and "inter-site" users. I want to port forward for outside users from the internet. Situation is Site A has real public IP address. Site B, using 4G does not have a real public IP address. As such, no servers (web server, etc) in Site B is reachable from the outside world from the internet.   Anyway, I am exploring on getting a 4G service with a real IP public address. ... View more

Meraki MX does not support IKE V2. So, connecting to Azure without using vMX is a pain in the ^#$#@$%@.   I look after the Australian branch of a multi-national company. All their other sites do not use Meraki and the Australian branch is the only one that uses an MX. I had no choice but to configure the MX as Passthrough and put an old SonicWall between the WAN link and MX to establish a VPN link to Azure.   Using a vMX is not an option on cost reasons as we are the only site requiring that out of over 50 sites.   Where is IKE V2 support for MX? Still waiting ....  ... View more

Support case has been raised but no suggestions as to why is this happening.   Happened again last night at 11:00:25 pm Dec 31st local time. Interesting thing is that it only happen to one of the 2 cameras at the same location. Same camera every time.   Case # 03440243.     ... View more

Does not allow me to port forward on MX in S1 to an IP subnet in S2.  ... View more