Hello,   I am trying to utilize our Layer 3 switches for VLAN routing. Can I get some assistance with this configuration: VLAN 1 Default (transport)  192.168.2.0/22 VLAN 10 VoIP  192.168.2.0/24 VLAN 20 Staff 192.168.3.0/22 VLAN 30 Guest 192.168.4.0/22 Local DHCP (not Meraki) 192.168.2.30 Local DNS 192.168.2.30 Firewall MX250 MS350 L3 switches 5x MS220 L2 Switches 5x   Not sure in which order or if I am missing anything but it looks like it takes 3 different places to set it up: 1. under switches/ configure/ DHCP & routing   Interfaces 2. under switches/ configure/ DHCP & routing   Static routes 3. Security & SD-Wan/ configure/ Addressing & VLANs   Static Routes   Thank you! ... View more

I have discovered that the 1:many meraki NAT implementation will always send outgoing traffic on the primary public IP instead of the IP assigned to the 1:many NAT rule.   I have spend hours on trying to find out why I am not able to use these two NAT services:   1. zoom meeting connector which should  be  possible to configured using 1:many NAT unfortunately not on meraki MX-100 device: https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/204898919-Configure-Meeting-Connector-Controller-Port-Forwarding The solution to this is not to use 1:many NAT rule and use 1:1 NAT unfortunately this will require two public IPs or more if you add other zoom on-premise services.   2. barracuda spam firewall and exchange server. I decided to offload some traffic from the barracuda firewall for traffic which is not related to SPAM checking and use the build in 1:many NAT instead of 1:1 on the MX-100. This resulted in outbound email be send using the primary IP instead of the assigned 1:many NAT This will result in SPF verification to fail and outgoing email be rejected from outside servers. Had to revert back to 1:1 NAT and deal with occasional overload on barracuda firewall due to web traffic.   Maybe this post will save someone else time. I am not looking for solution. The only solution which would work for me if meraki 1:many NAT would work as I expect it and would keep the assigned traffic to use the public IP I assigned it to.   cheers   ... View more

Hello, I have spend a week now trying to do something that looked like a simple task as granting Accessibility to our splashtop remote desktop tool for macs. The primary issue is on Mojave OSX since it was not required before and on Catalina the end user needs to enable Screen Recording settings in Privacy without requirement to have admin rights on the MAC computer. (not ideal but manageable) Meraki support has been silent with my ticket beside referring me to an old article which is not usable for my situation and not even for meraki remote tool.(https://documentation.meraki.com/SM/Profiles_and_Settings/Privacy_Preferences_Policy_Control_(PPPC)_on_macOS_with_Systems_Manager) I even tried using custom settings profile which I have created using tccprofile.py specifically developed for this task: https://github.com/carlashley/tccprofile#gui-mode   But I shouldn't have to do that since the the system manager profile tool has this option build in:   All I need Bundle ID, Code requirement and select Accessibility to allowed. Bundle ID: com.splashtop.Splashtop-Streamer Code requirement: identifier "com.splashtop.Splashtop-Streamer" and anchor apple generic and certificate 1[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.2.6] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[field.1.2.840.113635.100.6.1.13] /* exists */ and certificate leaf[subject.OU] = CPQQ3AW49Y     Here is good read on how it should work:https://derflounder.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/creating-privacy-preferences-policy-control-profiles-for-macos/   I have tried all the combination and options I could think of and tried it on different MAC systems with zero success.   I am very sad to see Meraki support and development fail me like this during time when we need them the most to be able to support our faculty since we had to switch to remote learning model.   I hope there is a solution I just missed and Meraki support was just overload due to the current situation and that is why they failed supporting me.     ... View more