- About Guruprakash_M
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Guruprakash_M
Comes here often
Member since Jul 24, 2019
03-10-2021
Community Record
12
Posts
0
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
03-09-2021
09:46 AM
Thanks again mate. Yes, we have planned for unique VLANs in respect to the ISP-1, ISP-2 and LAN connectivity for sure. I totally agreed to have a separate switches for WAN and LAN termination however this is one of small branch site for customer. Still, we look forward to check the different switch in subject to the availability factor. Sincerely, i thank you for the response on time. Highly appreciated for your dedication & efforts. 🙂
... View more
03-09-2021
09:31 AM
Thank you for the reply mate! Could you please confirm the below points as a conclusion of this query? Should we proceed to deploy the MX HA architecture using the mentioned topology in Routed mode? If yes, i hope we can get following results around this design... 1) Internet link load sharing by using both ISP links in MX with /29 IP subnet each 2) Internet link failover 3) MX failover
... View more
03-09-2021
08:45 AM
My apologies if this post confusing the earlier topic. However, let me reply for your queries to make 100% clear within us. I agree with you that i meant "aggregate" as a term refers to utilize both the ISP links together in MX on account of load sharing. Of course i don't enable any LACP between switches and MX WAN interfaces. Considering the shortage of switch ports, we would plan to use 1x LAN port/downlink per MX. I understand we are compromising the resiliency but still it's OK to move on i believe. As a caveat, this would be a single point of failure for LAN/VRRP communications that i understand... In conclusion, should we proceed to deploy the MX HA architecture using mentioned topology? If yes, i hope we can get following results around this design... 1) Internet link load sharing by using both ISP links in MX 2) Internet link failover 3) MX failover
... View more
03-09-2021
03:34 AM
Hi Meraki Experts, Greetings and hats-off for the forum replies. Appreciated! We have a use-case to aggregate the ISP-1 and ISP-2 links in MX HA pair as per my attached design. Here we go for the physical connectivity for WAN and LAN using switches. I've following queries to get the response from you guys.. 1) Should we manage to aggregate both ISPs in MX irrespective of MX hardware level failover? 2) Should we end-up landing into STP issues by having same Switch for both Uplink & Downlink?
... View more
12-23-2020
01:24 AM
Thanks for the swift reply. We tried this option which doesn't help for all the situations. Recently one of our non-Meraki IPSec VPN config were disturbed wherein we couldn't make use this this feature as you suggested. The change log doesn't have required parameters like Peer IP address and other non confidential things to refer back and re-configure... Can you assist us how to overcome such situation
... View more
12-22-2020
10:07 PM
Hi, Would you help us to know the native Meraki config rollback options in the dashboard? For instance, we have performed certain misconfiguration and we wanted to rollback to previous last known good configuration on date & time wise
... View more
08-13-2020
05:05 AM
Hi Philip, As far as the Cisco Meraki documentation guidelines, the direct L2 link (VRRP/HA) between the MX design got retired it seems. Are we in a same page? If not, shall we proceed to interconnect a dedicated layer-2 link for MX heartbeat link? Also, can we use the MX WAN interfaces (/29 IP subnet & same broadcast domain) to have VRRP heartbeat communication for define the failover provided the MXs are deployed in routed mode. If you could reply for this query, it would really great for our requirement.
... View more
08-13-2020
01:58 AM
Thanks for the quick reply Philip. I am sorry if my question is wrong!!! In such case, whether the vMX100 form factor can't be used in a SD-WAN use case?
... View more
08-13-2020
12:31 AM
Hi, What would be the marketplace MX form factor to accommodate 1500+ clients to enable SD-WAN in public cloud like Azure/AWS/GCP? I understand vMX100 is the current option for public cloud. Just wanted to know Meraki's view to meet such requirments.
... View more
08-12-2020
09:05 AM
Hi, Can one of you kindly answer my query regarding the MX250 HA setup in "routed-mode"? We do have a dual hand-off model Internet link with /29 IP subnet for HSRP mode of fail-over from ISP. We would want to use the WAN ports to participate VRRP heartbeat packets to define the failover since the WAN1 & WAN2 be part of same broadcast domain and moreover ISP routers and MX WAN connections are a local LAN within Data Center. Is that something possible in MX? If yes, should we proceed to use a VIP in WAN or not? As a note, we had single LAN connections in each MX LAN ports as a downlink and they are effectively being used for VRRP but when the downlink goes down we end up facing Active/Active role for both MX kits.
... View more
07-31-2020
04:25 AM
Hi, I too keen to know about the detailed SD-WAN feature set breakup among the 3 varieties of MX license. 1) Enterprise 2) Advanced-Security 3) Secure SD-WAN plus Can one of Cisco Meraki team will help me?
... View more
