Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Register or Sign in
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About roesljas
Community Record
21
Posts
4
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
4 weeks ago
Hi mate, Well fingers crossed it works for you. Also i sense another Aussie.... I'm Brisbane based. Just a bit more detail if it's helpful, create the new snooping interface on the most central switch, so you'll need to allocate a new IP address which is in addition to the management interface of the switch. Then reboot all your switches if possible, then do all your end points / cores / DSPs. The reason you need a querier on layer 2 only or single VLAN deployments is because the IGMP querier switch is what all other switches look to for the membership subscription information etc. Without a querier, all switches will just do their own thing. Jas
... View more
4 weeks ago
1 Kudo
Hi Ljackson85, I woke up this morning with a million update emails from Meraki Community in my inbox. I did this original post ages ago so I had forgotten all about it. I had issues with AES67 and IGMP which I haven't specifically revisited because I don't use pure AES67 often. However, I recently did a deployment of Q-sys Q-LAN audio (AES67) and had the same problem with the Core not discovering the QIO expanders. My system will grow over time, however for now it's just 2x MS120-8LP with a UniFi USW (soon to be MX). When uploading a new design in q-sys designer, the core simply couldn't discover the QIOs until I turned off IGMP snooping. So what I did was create a new Interface for IGMP querier (Switching > Routing and DHCP) on the MS120-8 closest to the USG (essentially the core switch), re-enabled snooping and would you believe it, everything started working as expected. The MS120 series does support interfaces for DHCP relay and IGMP snooping - it says so in the documentation and the dashboard. Furthermore, IGMP snooping is required for multiple switches to share port subscription/ membership data between each other, even if it's all within the same VLAN / L2 segment i.e. no requirement for routing. I have been a big fan of Meraki for a while, but truth is that it's not well suited to AVoIP applications. Issues such as no per port MTU configuration, no cost effective high SFP count switch hardware etc mean you may not be able to resolve some issues that arise. I have been eyeing up the Netgear M4350 series as an alternative for our larger dedicated AV projects. It's a nice range of edge to core switches that are specifically engineered for AVoIP. But they aren't cloud managed which will take some getting used to. I hope this is of some use and I'd be keen to know how you go. Thanks, Jas
... View more
Nov 20 2023
10:09 PM
Hello all, I wanted to ask some questions regarding the IGMP snooping and querier functions in Meraki MS switches. We only really use the MS120 / MS125 series as we do small networks to support out AV installations , we are an AV not an IT company. A lot of our projects just use one switch but we have more and more coming up with 2 x MS125s and we aren't providing our own router, instead we will uplink to a trunk on their (IT company's) core Fortinet switch. My questions are: 1) IGMP is enabled by default on meraki switches but not querier, do I need to setup an interface on one of the switches in a system to become the querier for the whole network? I'm unclear on how this works and how the switches / client devices know who is the querier. 2) Do you need an MX for IGMP querying to work, or is it handled entirely within the MS switches? 3) One of the network audio protocols we are using is called Q-LAN which is based on AES67. Supposedly, this protocol doesn't like jumbo frames / large MTUs, but we need it for the video encoders / decoders. And the manufacturers documentation says to disable jumbo frames on any switch ports that have Q-LAN devices attached. In meraki the MTU size is set on a per switch basis meaning I can't disable large MTUs on these ports only. Theoretically, if all Q-LAN devices are on their own dedicated VLAN and only communicate to each other, would it mean they'd never receive a large MTU despite the MTU size of the switch being set high? Thank you in advance,
... View more
Dec 1 2020
3:49 AM
Thanks for the reply. We have switched off the firewalls on the windows PCs. It's very strange given that Meraki says it's all up and rocking. I do also note that the PCs can ping each other when on the same MX / Network. Jason
... View more
Nov 30 2020
11:58 PM
Hi, We have just received a new set of Meraki hardware to be deployed across two sites. Both network are freshly created and each is just a single native VLAN with no L3 or L7 walls. Both sites are to be connected by a Meraki site-to-site VPN. SITE/NETWORK A - Factory (192.168.128.0/24 - MX IP 192.168.128.1) 1 x MX84 SITE/NETWORK B - Packing (192.168.15.0/24 - MX IP 192.168.15.1) 1 x MX68 1 x MR33 We are work shopping this setup now with both sites connected to the internet behind separate NAT firewalls, SITE B is behind a USB 4G cel model and SITE A is behind a DSL modem. With site-to-site enabled on both networks we get a successful VPN registry and NAT friendly traversal - happy days. However for some reason PCs connected to either MX can't communicate with ones on the other MX. Both MX's can ping each others internal LAN IP addresses using the Appliance status > Tools page > ping pool, and this stops working if I "un-export" either subnet on either MX which leads me to think data is passing. Both MX's can't pint clients on the other's network except for the MX84 at SITE A which can ping the MR33 at SITE B. At this point I don't really see what else to try, as mentioned earlier both networks are freshly created with next to no changes apart from the S2S VPN settings. Could it be that both MX's are behind NAT and this is causing issues on data passing however both MX's and networks report successful VPN connectivity. I should also mention that I'm not onsite right now and am performing these configurations and tests remotely. I won't be onsite until later this week for deployment - at an industrial farm off the beaten track - so I'd like to see if anyone has seen this before. When we do go to site to install the MX84, it will no longer be behind a NAT, leaving only the MX67 to behind the USB 4G modem NAT. Thanks in advance for any info. Jason
... View more
Oct 12 2020
12:05 AM
Hi @GIdenJoe Thanks for your reply, this is exactly the type of info I was after. It makes sense to me and I think the 16 VLAN limitation won't be an issue. - I create the MS management VLAN that goes L2 through the core stack so the gateway is the MX. This way you can have the core switches and the access switches is one management VLAN. Understood - Then I create the /30 transit VLAN between MX and core stack. This is done both on the MX addressing and vlans page and the switch routing and dhcp page. Understood - Then I create the static routes on the MX pointing to the core stack IP each individually because you need those individual subnets to create a DHCP scope for in the MX. This is the piece of info I was missing, I see that for every static route you add (just like any VLAN you add) on the MX, you then have an appropriate DHCP scope added and configurable in the DHCP page. - Then I create the dhcp scopes on the MX DHCP page. Understood - Then I create the individual VLAN interfaces with DHCP relay pointing to the MX /30 subnet IP address. Understood Thanks very much. Jason
... View more
Oct 8 2020
3:23 AM
Hi @cmr Thanks for the info, I have a lot to consider here. I will let you know how i go with it all. Jason
... View more
Oct 3 2020
10:19 PM
Hi @DarrenOC I don't have gear available to test, at this stage it's still concept and may never happen. Should I get closer to that point then I will look at requesting some demo gear from Meraki. Hi @cmr Thanks for the answers, it helps clear it up. I guess I didn't consider the possibility that the VLANs go from MS to MX as normal (which allows DHCP to pass as usual) and that clients use the switch SVI as the default gateway instead of the MX VLAN IP (which achieves routing at the MS level). I was looking it as more of a WAN style connection between the MS and MX. Would this technically mean that there are two gateways on the network, the MX VLAN IP and the MS SVI? Also would the DHCP relay at the MS be required in this instance given that the VLANs pass from MX to MS? Would you use L3 rules on the MX to ensure it doesn't inter-VLAN route? Thanks Jason
... View more
Oct 2 2020
6:48 PM
Hi Everyone, Thanks for the great replies, I know your all in the opposite timezone to me 🙂 I was pleasantly surprised to see that the 210s and 225s can stack together, it really makes it a versatile solution for 1G and 10G downlinking to closet switches. 10G infrastructure is one of those "it's noticeably more expensive steps' in Meraki so it's nice o be able to add it later. So getting a bit more nitty gritty technical, I have some follow up questions: 1) Would it be prudent to use a /30 subnet between the MS210/225 core and the MX? 2) Is it just one VLAN between the MS core and MX? 3) To achieve multiple DHCP pools being relayed from the MX through the MS, do I need to create the same VLANs with same IDs in the MX as in the MS core? In other words, how does the MX know what address to hand out to the respective MS VLAN relayed request? 4) In having the inter-VLAN routing happening in the switches, will this mean that only internet bound traffic will make it to the MX? 5) How does the switches SVI become the default gateway in the relayed DHCP request? Is this a function of DHCP relay or a special option set on the MX? Thanks, Jason
... View more
Oct 2 2020
6:20 AM
1 Kudo
Hi, I am putting together some design ideas for a colleague of mine where we may consider using MS210 and MS225 switches doing basic L3 routing as a core. We have a lot of local data flying around and it would be good to keep that away from the MX. I have come to notice that both these MS lines do not have a DHCP server but support DHCP relay. My question is, will a mix of MS210s and MS225s successfully relay DHCP requests from an MX (100 maybe) across a couple of VLANs? And can you specify a different default gateway in the MX DHCP pool (which would be the MS VSI IP presumably) or is this done as part of the MS DHCP relay process? I am moving into new territory here as I've not worked with L3 switches as yet. I am considering proposing: MX100 as gateway MS210 and MS225 stacked as core switches MS120s as access switches in the remote sheds Any feedback welcome
... View more
Sep 29 2020
3:15 PM
Thanks for that info, I would definitely keep that as a last resort.
... View more
Sep 29 2020
2:12 AM
1 Kudo
Hi thanks for the reply. I haven't looked into normal Cisco yet. The cloud management of Meraki is an extremely appealing feature given the location of the site and business workflow. We are hoping we may be able to cut down to 2 connections. As for using two MXs on 2 two separate network; Presumably this would be putting different VLANs across the two appliances e.g. voice on one MX, general data on the second MX etc ? The devices wouldn't be working together at all. Jason
... View more
Sep 29 2020
1:54 AM
Hi, I have a remote site with extremely limited internet connection options. There are currently no DSL or Fibre runs in the area so we are limited to a long range P2P satellite system - with a 4 port NTD. For some reason each port can only deliver a 20mb connection, this means that the customer has to order 4 separate connections (totalling 80mb) across the 4 ports - which means 4 public IPs etc. We can't order 1 x 80mb connection on one port - not sure why. Anyway my question is: The MXs offer only 2 physical WAN ports + USB for SD-WAN, Is there a way to do SD-WAN with up to 4 separate connections using an MX? If not, can anyone recommend a alternative way forward here. Thank you, Jason
... View more
Sep 13 2019
3:13 AM
Hi thanks, this is just for my interest. I'm not about to start an ISP.
... View more
Sep 13 2019
3:11 AM
Hi jdsilva Thanks for the reply. How many IPs did you pass through? Were the /29 subnets on the inside private or public IPs? Thanks Jason
... View more
Sep 12 2019
1:15 AM
Hi, I'm just curious to know if Meraki switches or security appliances would be a good choice for a small ISP style setup? In this scenario you take in a large pipe from a wholesaler with a stack of public IP addresses and separately distribute them to each tenant in your property. Each tenant gets a public IP address that is delivered to it via DHCP in an isolated VLAN. Furthermore you would need to do customised speeds per client, e.g. 20/20 , 50/50 , 100/100 etc. I note that the MS L3 switches could probably do this apart from the bandwidth management. And the MX's would do the bandwidth but probably not deal with the public IPs in and out so well. We work with a small ISP who provides this exact setup but they use Juniper switches and MicroTrik routers connected via radio links etc. Thanks Jason
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 273 | |
| 1 | 3315 | |
| 1 | 3668 | |
| 1 | 3674 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
