- About MarcelTempelman
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
MarcelTempelman
Getting noticed
Member since Jul 10, 2019
07-24-2020
Community Record
24
Posts
2
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
07-23-2020
11:15 PM
Having one 1 IP address is standard with Catalyst Stackwise because the switches share the same control plane. I guess they did not change that. The boottimes are really bad. It's a bit embarassing that they slap themselves on the shoulder with having one hell of an ASIC on the inside while the switch itself takes ages to boot (resulting in unnecessary long downtime). The Catalyst version is also slow as hell (but that is already mentioned in this thread).
... View more
07-20-2020
12:57 PM
>No Meraki stack from any model MS family allows an individual switch to be rebooted. The same restriction applies with most of the Cisco Enterprise stacks as well. Nexus is one exception, but it's not a stack like the others. Catalyst 3K and 9K have an extra reload option to reload a slot (aka a stackmember). And you can always use the power to shut down a member (not elegant I know). IMHO the purpose of a stack is redundancy in case of a failure. Having MLAG support is a benefit. VPC on NX-OS has one big benefit and that if one switch fails at the software level it won’t pull the other switch down the drain. VSS and StackWise Virtual still have that problem just like normal stacks. One drawback is that you have 2 separate switches with separate configs which you need to keep synced manually. Putting the redundancy at the host level is also an option. It’s a matter of preference I guess.
... View more
07-20-2020
07:32 AM
That beats the purpose of a stack. You would expect redundancy (to a certain level) when you connect servers with double connections to a stack. Splitting the stack will also disable any MLAG functionality. Meraki should not have released this switch before a) the firmware was stable and b) it has at least the feature level of a MS355/MS425. This thread is already too long and still the beta firmware (release notes) does not show much progress. since I opened this thread. We're talking about a hardware platform which is already in production for about 2-3 years. It has a predecessor which is quite similar (Cat3600/3800). You'd say they had more than enough to play around with prototypes. I do not know what is keeping them from 'getting there'. In the meantime we've made several designs based on the 'normal' MS400/MS300 switches where a proper functioning MS390 certainly would have made a difference. I really love the idea of having a Cat9K switch with Meraki software don't get me wrong.
... View more
07-09-2020
04:38 AM
We have a customer hitting this issue. Downgrading to 25.14 did not seem to fix this. I've seen this problem in several threads now so I hope this will be resolved soon. Edit : customer uses MR33s
... View more
05-06-2020
01:44 AM
Hi, Cat 9300/9200 and Cat3800/3600 boot very slow and when stacking is enabled it's even slower. 2960X are slow beasts also when it comes to booting. It seems boottime is no priority at Cisco.... (when things are down you get the urge to beat the switch to boot faster... 😁 ).
... View more
03-30-2020
12:03 AM
Good to hear about the stability. For access switches we went for the 250 because it support redundant power supplies. We're going back to the drawing board and I'll consider what you're using, thank you.
... View more
03-27-2020
01:04 AM
The customer needs around 20 SFP/SFP+ ports en 20-40 copper ports in each MER. A stack of 3 MS-390s would be enough otherwise we'd have to make a design with several stacks of MS3XX and MS4XX switches.
... View more
03-26-2020
07:18 AM
It depends. If the customer is targeting Q3/4 for implementation and everything is fixed by then there's no problem.
... View more
03-26-2020
12:55 AM
1 Kudo
Hi, we were considering the MS-390 in a design for a customer but after looking at the release notes (even the beta software) we're not really convinced that this switchis ready for action yet. This is a list from the relase notes and I say it's quite long: MS390 stack members may not report client-level detail MS390 series switches Max MTU is limited to 9198 bytes MS390 series switches will not display packet details in the DHCP Servers page MS390 series switches do not support the 'next-server' or 'bootfile' parameters in DHCP messages Rebooting a single switch in an MS390 stack will reboot the entire stack LLDP frames from MS390 series switches will use a single system name instead of the Dashboard given name MS390 series switches will not display the advertising router ID for OSPF MS390 series switches with OSPF enabled will default to an IP MTU of 1500 bytes on every OSPF enabled interface MS390 series switches do not support the multicast routing livetool Stacked MS390 series switches do not report traffic/client analytics correctly in all cases MS390 series switches do not support tagged traffic bypass for voice on ports with a Multi-Auth access policy Dynamic VLAN assignment from a RADIUS server on MS390 series switches must already be an allowed VLAN on the port for it to function MS390 series switches may not display link state on links at mGig speeds (2.5G, 5G) MS390 series switches do not currently support the following features: VRRP, SM Sentry, Syslog server, SNMP, Traceroute, IPv6 connectivity to dashboard, Meraki Auth, URL Redirection, MAC Whitelisting, RADIUS Accounting, RADIUS CoA, QoS, Power Supply State, PoE power status/usage, Loop Detection, UDLD, MAC Flap Detection Is there an ETA when this list is implemented / fixed ? It's also a bit confusing ; we designed a redundant core solution with a warm spare. The datasheet says the MS-390 supports warm spare but the realse notes say VRRP is not supported yet. Are we talking about VRRP with other brands (Warm spare is based on VRRP with Meraki switches) or is this VRRP in general ? with kind regards, Marcel Tempelman
... View more
10-23-2019
03:43 AM
One more 'just to be sure' : the subnet mask is correct ? Otherwise try to get a PCAP from traffic within the VLAN (or from of the port of the non-functioning APs) and see what happens with DHCP requests and offers.
... View more
10-22-2019
05:07 AM
Hi, just to be sure: have you checked the size of the DHCP scope ? (been there, done that, smacked my face...) Grtz
... View more
10-14-2019
10:39 AM
There are a few scenarios where you want to avoid DFS-channels (VoWLAN designs for example), not disable them. In that case you might want to avoid the Cisco 1500-series because these are DFS-only and you might want to ruggedize an indoor AP (E.g. AP in an IP65 enclosure with heating). The fact is that outdoor APs have nice ruggedized features out of the box which make them interesting for harsh indoor enviroments (cold/heat/humidity). The lack of non-DFS-channel support on the 1500-series got me wondering if the Meraki outdoor APs also followed this 'design'.
... View more
10-12-2019
07:39 AM
You're right about the regulations but I wondered if the outdoor APs are limited like the outdoor APs from Cisco (1500-series). These cannot use the UNII-1 and 2 bands which is a bit odd considering the fact the indoor AP can be used on every allowed frequency and you can use them outdoor with an enclosure (you would have to disable the lower UNII bands). The reason I'm asking this is that the outdoor AP's are suitable for indiir use where the enviroment is harsh (heat/cold/etc.) but that would automatically mean you would have to use DFS-channels. So for a VoWLAN design these are not the first choice, then I'd rather use an external antenna on an indoor AP in an enclosure.
... View more
10-12-2019
03:18 AM
Hi all, Maybe I have overlooked some documentation but can anyone tell me if the MR74/MR84 access points use DFS--channles only (ch. 100+) in the ETSI-domain (Europe)? I know that the Cisco outdoor APs are limited to DFS-channels. With kind regards, Marcel.
... View more
09-07-2019
01:03 AM
I've considered the MR84 with a stadium antenna for a wharehouse because this antenna has a narrow beam ideal for getting the signal between the racks but we went for the MR42E with the narrow patch antenna fot the initial design. Things might change, have to get feedback about what the enviroment will be in the wharehouse. Acceltext has a great range of products. The AP mount looks great.
... View more
09-04-2019
11:28 AM
There are two 4-lead antennas for the MR42E/53E and for the MR84 you can use the Stadium antenna or a third party antenna. The 2 antenna setup is a bit odd and I wonder why they designed them the way they did (considering the fact that Cisco Enterprise has enough templates for antennas to use).
... View more
09-02-2019
12:46 PM
a few weeks ago I opened a thread about the MR84 and how to use the antennas https://community.meraki.com/t5/Wireless-LAN/MR84-and-dual-band-antennas-vs-MR74/m-p/54414 Take a look maybe the discussion has some useful information for you.
... View more
09-02-2019
12:41 PM
I ran into the same issue concerning documentation. The distance between the antenna’s should be at least one wave length. Have no idea what the maximum distance is but keep in mind to far apart will increase the coverage angle and that might affect your intended coverage.
... View more
07-18-2019
01:09 PM
1 Kudo
Hello Brad, as they say in the wireless community 'it depends'. What might work in your warehouse might suck in the other. If you have racks which are not filled to the brim or the materials stored are 'wireless friendly' (when looking at attenuation) you can have great coverage with only a few access points. Things get tricky with metal parts or with food. Omnidirectional antennas can be great in offices but can completely screw up your wifi performance in a warehouse. So it really depends... Here's a great video about Warehouse WIFI: https://www.wlanpros.com/resources/warehouse-wi-fi-francois-verges-glenn-cate-wlpc-phoenix-2018/ and this is a great blog post on why chosing a different antenna can make a big impact: https://blog.theitrebel.com/2018/08/27/warehouse-wireless-design-ideas/ With kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
07-18-2019
12:01 PM
Hello Dave, thank you for your extensive reply. You answered a lot of my questions I had. I hope we win the deal. I look forward doing a large scale Meraki wireless infrastructure . Until now it has been Cisco Enterprise only. With th kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
07-16-2019
12:59 AM
Hello Dave, thank you for your reply. The APs will be placed in a warehouse and it depends on the enviroment if you can use indoor access points. That's why we looked at the MR74/84 in the first. The MR84 is a bit strange in my opinion: - it is a top level access point (in my opinion) with only 1 radio per frequency (compared to the Cisco 2800/3800) - there is no Meraki dual band (sector) antenna with 4 leads - the construction with 2 sector antennas is quite big and i'd prefer a single antenna in front of the AP. Having 2 anntennas next to each other (vertical or horizontal) will increase the coverage angle. This is why I wanted to know if the AP works with 1 antenna and what the impact would be. The 4x4:4 functionality is nice but not necessary for aisles with one or two handscanners.(there is also no documentation on the mounting of both antennas; I asume they need to be mounted at least 5" apart). It seems the MR84 is designed for omnidirectionals in mind not with directional antennas. For now the MR42E is our best option (unless we need to adapt to an harsher enviroment). with kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
07-15-2019
01:10 AM
Hello all, I got an answer from Meraki : The MR84 can work with one dual band antenna. They did not specify the difference between using 1 vs 2 antennas. When using 1 antenna you need to terminate the unused antenna ports with RF Load terminators (https://www.pasternack.com/50-ohm-rf-load-terminations-category.aspx). with kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
07-11-2019
02:53 AM
Hello Brecht, Thank you for your reply. What you describe is my assumption also : decreased functionality when only one antenna is in use. We were certainly not planning using the anntennas is different directions because in that case the MR84 should have had an extra radio like the Cisco 3800. Hopefully someone will update the documents so that we don't have to assume things. This morning I was discussing the situation with my colleague and I tested some antenna patterns in Ekahau and the MR42E with the 3F antenna (narrow patch) is probably a better option. The 'Universal AP and Antenna Articulating Mount' from Acceltex makes the installation also a bit easier. If the (exptected) warehouse enviroment is friendly for this type of access point than we will go the MR42E way. Nonetheless I would like to have an official Meraki statement about the MR84 antennas. With kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
07-11-2019
12:02 AM
Hello all, We're looking into a warehouse wireless solution based on Meraki access points for one of our customers. The MR74 and MR84 are candidate access points. What bugs me a bit is the lack of proper documentation on how to combine access points and antennas. For example nowhwere in the documentation of the MR84 can you find if you can use the AP with one or two antennas and if you are able to use it with one, what the benefit would be if you'd use two. As far as I know the MR84 can be used with one antenna based on this 'if' statement in the installation guide: Reminder: Both 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz client serving radios are diplexed onto each antenna port, so if using multiple antennas it is best practice to aim all in the same coverage area. Using 2 antennas in this case makes installation extra complex because you need to align them in a proper way and the construction needed for mounting the aps will be bigger. I'd say the stadium antenna or a 3rd party dual band antenna with 4 leads is a better fit for this access point. The MR74 can use single band and dual band antennas (will be reduced to singe band antenne on the MR74). So my question is; what is best suited for a warehouse setup? The MR74 of a MR84 ? And if it's the MR84 what's the best practice concerning antennas (1 or 2) ? Thanks in advance, With kind regards, Marcel Tempelman.
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3122 | |
| 1 | 2326 |
