Great - glad it helped! ... View more

It might be best to make a new thread (feel free to link it here) with your specific issue and problems so we can see if we can help ... View more

Thanks Hanz! ... View more

Exactly that! @BlakeRichardson  ... View more

Thank you @Hanz !   This is great news - Do you know if it keeps the device screen alive when it is on video wall? ... View more

Hello @GiacomoS  and @spadefist (great name)   Thank you for this.   However we did follow all of those guidelines when specifying the correct model and have still ended up in this situation.   The sizing guideline did up until recently have the figures of the MX75/85 set at 750Mbps, it was recently refreshed to 500Mbps.   I did open a support case initially about this and was told to talk to the account manager. I spoke with the account manager who didn't know about this and still hasn't been able to procure an answer.   So from our side this process seems broken. We've followed the guidelines and it feels like the goalposts have been moved. Then that we're not being told or getting any information on the changes.   What is worse is that it feels like the units are being artificially held back and capped. We're sad as the MX75/85 product line performance change devalues these machines significantly.   It leaves us back in a similar situation we were in before these products were announced where there is a gap in the MX lineup to cater for environments with above 500 Mbps who don't or can't justify the cost of a unit like the MX95. This is an area where competitors don't have those sort of gaps in this market. I find it odd as this must be a pretty normal requirement as we have dozens of clients who need this sort of unit.   For existing customers we need to address the issue that they bought a unit based on the figured in the sizing sheet that had been out for over a year and now the throughput figures have dropped a third.   For new customer / sales we will also need to address the situation. We had a customer with a signed off order for an MX85 that due to this uncertainty we paused. Given that this has taken so long and with the customer pushing we had to lend them one of our MX100 units to give them access to more bandwidth while we resolved the issue. I'm not sure what the outcome here is. If we go back to the customer and say "sorry you need this next up unit that is double the costs" At best we ourselves will look incompetent, at worst it looks like a money grab.   As above Giacomo I don't have any open tickets about the issue now but am happy to open one and work with you to resolve this. Certainly the AM's we've spoken to don't know about this or anyway forward. I am very keen to get this issue resolved for existing client and clients where we have open or approved orders for the MX85 units         ... View more

Hello @GiacomoS    Thank you for looking into this and coming back so quickly.   Bad and rather disappointing news! 😟    Both for the MX lineup and the MX75 and MX85 products specifically. It also it going to make an issue for us with existing clients who purchased the MX85 unit from us with the figures and throughput previously quoted.   Why has this change been made? The units have been out for nearly 2 years at this point and the figures and throughput have always been 750 Mbps?   Is the unit being limited to 500 Mbps? Is this a product decision to do this? As it seems the hardware is capable and up until recently was performing at 750 Mbps (this is going to be another sticky point with customers)   What shall we communicate to existing customers? Clients purchased the unit based on the specifications listed and while some variances are to be expected a 33% reduction in throughput is way too much and a significant change.   We have clients who are ready to increase the bandwidth from 500 to 1000 and purchased the unit specifically as it could cope with more than 500. It is one of these clients who initially raised the issue. They want an explanation and if presented with the above are going to feel miss sold.    As a partner and Meraki only house I think we really should have been notified about this. It has made us look silly and negatively impacted clients perception of Meraki by having differing numbers on documentation and the delay in getting an answer.   As for the MX lineup itself, in our region to have the unit limited to 500 Mbps commercially puts us at a disadvantage against alternative vendors given that the MX95 is double the cost. It also doesn't sit well with those figures agains the MX67 line up given the cost differences. Commercially it just doesn't stack up as well.   I'm very keen to know thoughts and answers to the above.   We have four deals that are currently paused waiting on the confirmation of the MX85's abilities. Sadly switching to an MX95 is going to move us away from being viable cost wise on a couple of these deals.  ... View more

Hello @GiacomoS    Great thank you!   If you're able to confirm why the sizing guide differs from the datasheet now that would be great!   Yes - we're seeing a flat 500Mb/s limit on the MX85's we tested. Prior to this we were seeing more. As @PhilipDAth  said it seems like the box is being limited.    We noticed when a customer flagged to us the sizing guide had changed from 750Mb/s down to 500 Mb/s yet the datasheet has not   Many Thanks! ... View more

Hello,   Yes - we opened a case and were sent the two contradictory pieces of documentation then told to speak with the account manager. We've been at that stage but nobody can answer the issue or confirm what is going on ... View more

Hello all,   Has anyone from Meraki seen this and able to comment on the issue? Anyone on the MX product team @AI007    Two sets of documentation that give different figures?   We're struggling to get any answers for this and it is reflecting badly on us for clients   ... View more

Thank you - we did check this, nothing recent or changes that we think caused this.   We are getting the full 1Gb throughput with Threat Protection disabled.   Our MX firmware tests were done on MX 16.16.8 and 17.10.2    @PhilipDAth what version was your MX75 on? ... View more

So we have been unable to gather any more information on this so far from technical support saying talk to or our local reps. Who don't know and it loops round to technical as if its a localised issue.   We are so far just getting "figures can be variable based on traffic" coupled with "MX advances mean things could be slower"   Has anyone seen or know anything further? Meraki employees?    It feels like the devices are being limited in our testing as people like @PhilipDAth have also seen.   We haven't been told anything and this is starting to get embarrassing for us as Cisco partners with customers and Meraki's reputation with the customers. We have two sets of documentation with differing throughput now.   We have customers who have kit that has dropped 33.3% of its throughput and we have ongoing prospects we can't advance as we cannot get a straight answer.    Can someone help please? ... View more

Thanks @jbright this isn't environmental or ISP related. We are seeing this across all of the MX85 units deployed. They've been neutered  ... View more

Hi @PhilipDAth    I agree - it feels like the units are being held back now.    The big problem with this that the units were advertised as 750Mb/s and sold as that.   Now silently it seems unless I am missing something Meraki have moved the goal posts. Customers are aware of this and we already have one who is asking why their device has been limited post sale and asking for a replacement MX95 to meet their requirements.    Anyone from Meraki able to shed some light on this?  ... View more

Hello,   That is the issue - we are not seeing 750 MBit   The device was originally advertised at 750 MBit but now they are saying 500 MBit. This is a big change from what was advertised initially.      ... View more

Nothing specific on the units that would be limiting the throughput     ... View more

Finally!!!!   Absolutely amazing to have the MX100 replaced ... View more

Thanks John,   Looking forward to trying this ... View more

I haven't but am very interested if you get this to work!   Good luck ... View more

So your revised setup looks the same - with the VLAN 95 connected into the MS Core instead of the MX units themselves?   Twin connections from each MX into the MS Cores as well? ... View more

Hi @Yashi    Yes - the current beta release firmware has support for IKEv2 which allows for route based VPN.  As per the attached screenshot, obviously it is still beta firmware so keep that in mind! But people have so far been having good results with it   ... View more

Congratulations all - some very impressive results indeed! ... View more

@cmr pass me the hammer....   Now that is distinctly not pleasant. Thanks - i'll make sure we don't fall into 12.16 accidentally!   @Gumby that even worse....      ... View more

Come on team!!! ... View more