Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Become a member of the Cisco Meraki Community today
Get answers from our community of experts in record time.
Join nowAbout pBrain
pBrain
Here to help
Member since Aug 23, 2019
a week ago
Community Record
18
Posts
0
Kudos
1
Solution
Badges
a week ago
This has been resolved. Oversight on my part. The issue was that the VLAN's had to be allowed on the Uplink and Downlink connections of each of the switches. Also, Catalyst switches do not allow for the "All" entry in the Allowed VLAN's, they have to be enumerated.
... View more
a week ago
It's odd, because on one of the switch stacks, it takes the transit VLAN as the switch IP address, but on all the others it uses the Net Management VLAN.
... View more
2 weeks ago
I think I know why it wouldn't ping. The VLAN for 10.2.0.1 was not in the "Allowed VLAN's" field in the switch I was connected to. But I thought that the default route would handle that. As soon as I added the VLAN to the Allowed VLAN's field on the uplink port on the switch, it responded. And since the switch is a Catalyst Switch, I can't use, "All", I have to enumerate ALL the VLAN's I want to allow.
... View more
2 weeks ago
While watching some Youtube videos on the subject and reading through the community posts. This one in particular: Solved: Separate VLAN for Transit VLAN versus Meraki Core switches management inte... - The Meraki Community
... View more
2 weeks ago
I had to manually add the VLAN to the "Allowed VLAN's" field in order to be able to ping it, since Catalyst switches do not allow the "All" entry. But ... Shouldn't the Default Route handle that? Why did I not have to do the same thing on the MS350 Switch?
... View more
2 weeks ago
The reason I bring this up is because I have a Network management VLAN, that all other switches get their IP addresses from, but the core l3 switches are using the TRANSIT VLAN SVI IP Address instead. I read somewhere that in the Meraki ecosystem, the management and transit VLAN's must be different. Is that still the case?
... View more
2 weeks ago
Also, the document states, "SVI MTU size is 1500". Does this mean that I have to set the MTU for that whole L3 switch to 1500? Currently our switches have a default MTU of 9198.
... View more
2 weeks ago
Thanks. I am running into an issue where my L3 switches are displaying their IP addresses from the transit VLAN, and not from the management VLAN. Is this by design?
... View more
2 weeks ago
When setting up L3 routing on MS / Catalyst (Meraki) Switches with an MX, I am setting up 2 SVI's on the switch to start. 1 NET Management SVI for Management and 1 TRANSIT SVI for Inter VLAN Traffic and communicating with the Uplink MX. Which of these two SVI's should be set up as the "Default Uplink"?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Interfaces
-
Layer 3
2 weeks ago
There is a default route to the Transit interface 0.0.0.0/0 next hop 10.9.0.1
... View more
2 weeks ago
The device you are using for test, 10.1.0.6 - what is its default gateway (it should be 10.1.0.1)? Does this device have a subnet mask of 255.255.255.0? YES to both. If I understand correctly, 10.1.0.0/24 only exists on the MX at L3, correct? YES. If the switch is a Catalyst switch, has routing been enabled with "ip routing"? It's a Catalyst Switch in "Meraki Mode", so fully managed on the Dashboard. But if I try to run the command in the terminal via the dashboard, it doesn't like the command.
... View more
2 weeks ago
I am setting up L3 Routing on our core switches. Created a transit VLAN on MX VLAN 999 10.9.0.0/24 MX IP .1 MX has VLAN 1 Configured as well 10.1.0.0/24 MX IP .1 Added SVI to L3 Switch in Transit VLAN 10.9.0.2 GW .1 and set as Default Uplink Added VLAN 222 10.2.0.0/24 SVI .1 to Switch and set the switch as the GW Added Static Route on MX to 10.2.0.0/24 Next Hop 10.9.0.2 I am on VLAN 1 10.1.0.6 trying to ping 10.2.0.1 with no success. But I can ping 10.9.0.2 and the MX 10.9.0.1. Am I missing something?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Interfaces
-
Layer 3
Feb 24 2025
8:31 AM
I am trying to do something, which may or may not be possible and I need someone smarter than me to help me figure this out. I am trying to set this up and I am not sure how I can make this work: All sites connected to ELAN via 10GB port on a local switch. Site 1 IP Subnet & Equipment 192.168.1.0/22 Gateway is 192.168.1.1 MX450 Catalyst 9300 Switch (In Meraki Mode) Site 2 IP Subnet & Equipment 192.168.20.0/24 Gateway is 192.168.20.1 MX67 Catalyst 9300 Switch (In Meraki Mode) We want to create a L3 route at each site to ‘find’ the other network. Site 2 contains our DR Nodes, so the two sites need to communicate in order to be able to replicate between the sites. Also, we want to route internet traffic from Sites 4 and 4 through Site 1 unless Site 1 is unreachable, then we want the traffic to route via Site 2.
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Interfaces
-
Layer 2
-
Layer 3
Oct 19 2024
7:34 AM
Does this mean that is I have a VLAN with an ID of 4000, I won't be able to add the switch? Do I have to change all my VLAN ID's to be within the 1-1000 range?
... View more
May 6 2024
6:15 AM
I am seeking a little help in what may be an unorthodox configuration. Not sure if I am missing anything here, so I am reaching out to those who are smarter than I for guidance. We have two locations which we currently have connected via site to site (10GB) fiber. Both sites have MX Appliances. Site 1 is the primary site with all the users and clients (172.18.20.0/24) and Site 2 is the Data Site (172.18.200.0/24) with all the servers. Servers at Site 2 have a 172.18.20.0 address and are reachable from Site 1. Currently, I can reach devices on the 172.18.200.0/24 network via Site-to-site VPN, but I want to eliminate this method. The goal is to allow devices at Site 2, connectivity to devices at Site 1 via the switches that link the 2 site. My thinking is that I need to perform the following task: Create a Layer 3 Routing Interface on the Switch at Site 2 with a route to 'connect' the 172.18.200.0/24 and 172.18.20.0/24 networks. Meraki makes this a little confusing with their numerous UI's, so I am not sure where and how to set this up. Below is a network diagram. Phase 2 of this will be to add a second interface to the servers with a 172.18.200.0/24 address for redundancy in the event that the link between BAKER and BERRYVILLE is severed, the server would use the 200.1 gateway.
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Interfaces
-
Layer 3
Feb 2 2022
11:22 AM
Kept pinging. I am going to stop it and try the ping again in 10 minutes (for good measure). I am pinging the device directly from another device on a different VLAN (not the dashboard).
... View more
Feb 2 2022
11:01 AM
Yes, but those are specifically set to follow the Network Firewall Rules.
... View more
Feb 2 2022
10:41 AM
Am I missing something? I set up this rule: # 2 Action: DENY Protocol: ICMPv4 Source: ANY Port: ANY Dest: IOT NETWORK Port: ANY Why am I still about to ping devices in my IOT Network? Am I missing something here?
... View more
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 438 | a week ago |
© 2025 Cisco Systems, Inc.
