The web site is still proudly advertising "Instant wired failover with added 3G/4G failover via USB modem" for the MX75, MX85, and MX105.  I've told support (who said they sent it over to marketing as a "suggestion") and multiple account reps (not sure what they did) that this can be considered false advertising.   It's even more-so that 18.2 firmware is treating USB modems as best effort and the old modems don't actually work at all in the newer models. ... View more

There's a bit of problem with this.  The firmware page shows the most recent Stable release as 18.107.2.  A newer version of 18.107 is buried in the Other available versions section at the end.  Stable patches used to be visible in the Stable section.  In fact, the organization of the tabs has been recognized as declining in stability from left to right (Stable > Stable RC, Beta).  The label Other available versions communicates "don't look here unless you know what you are doing". ... View more

This is still not fixed?!? ... View more

@pjc @NolanHerring,   Guys - you seem to not understand your role in all of this.  The Meraki product team serves at the pleasure of the Meraki product team.  Unless you are a very large customer, they don't care a lick about you, your problems, or your suggestions.    When the product team decided it was time to make the new dashboard layout mandatory for everyone, some intern reminded them that many customers had chosen to turn it off.  Their response was "So what?  We like it."    Make a Wish/Give your feedback goes directly to /dev/null unless your spend level is above a certain threshold.  The system does keep count of deleted feedback and displays it on a public board in the HQ office.  The product team sometimes looks up at that and laughs as they think about the fools that took time to write out thoughtful comments and suggestions that will never become anything.   Support is trained to "discard cases that cannot be easily solved by suggesting the customer submit feedback." "Be convincing when telling customers that their feedback is valued and taken seriously", the manual says. "Try not to laugh out loud when you tell this to a customer over the phone or it will undermine the goal of getting the customer to go away thinking their issue will be addressed in the near future." ... View more

@NolanHerring wrote: Logged in today to what I am assuming is a forced new dashboard and we'll just have to live with it. What I don't understand is how anyone thought this was better. Am I the only one? We don't have to live with it.  If customers created enough of a stir about it through support tickets, forums, the "feedback" link, and complaints to the account rep, maybe someone would take notice.  ... View more

How about honoring the setting to not use the new GUI?  We looked at it, it was worse than the original and manually switched back.  I don't appreciate being forced to use the new one. ... View more

I had already been in contact with the AM before my first post here.  Things started out with me asking for a multi-year renewal quote.  I supplied an inventory and then a Zoom meeting was scheduled to discuss the quote.    It wasn't the AM that brought up the MX100 EOST.  It was someone from my team.  I stupidly responded  "I'm sure Meraki handles this situation reasonably.  The excess is probably transferable.  But, let's bring this up in the meeting to confirm."   The meeting started with the AM producing a quote that would take the MX100 over a year past EOST, but no mention of EOST.  Then we asked about EOST and the AM didn't have an answer for us.  He tried to contact his SE, but the SE didn't respond.  He followed up later via email stating that we would just lose the balance of the license.  That's when I posted here because that policy seemed ludicrous.   The AM did eventually find a solution to our satisfaction.  But I am sad and puzzled that Cisco Meraki's position on this is to screw the customer.  I'm not suggesting that if someone has 8 months left on an MX100 that they should allow a customer to transfer 8 months to an MX250.  But a weighted transfer based on list price difference would be fair and reasonable.  They already have those weights calculated for co-term licensing.  It's puzzling that they won't do the same thing for per-device licensing.   If my team member had not brought this up, we wouldn't have asked, the AM wouldn't have brought it up, and there would have been a very bitter conversation in 2026 or 2027 when we would find that we were sold a license not worth what we thought it was.  I avoided that.  But I bet there will be a lot of unnecessary drama from customers that don't. ... View more

Since an MX is a security product, to me it becomes useless after support ends.  It doesn't matter if the license is honored, it's no good to me if security exploits in the firmware are not getting fixed.   Thanks everyone for responding so quickly.  It's too bad Meraki's policy is so poor here, but at least we know that's how it is. ... View more

Can't you just point your tech to this thread?  You can grab a permalink from the three dots menu to one of the posts about how v18 with snort 2.9 is working and paste that in as a case note. ... View more

Ironically, the Snort folks claim that v3.0 offers performance improvements.   https://blog.snort.org/2020/08/snort-3-2-differences.html   "Snort 3.0 is an updated version of the SNORT® Intrusion Prevention System that features a new design and a superset of Snort 2.X functionality that results in better efficacy, performance, scalability, usability and extensibility." ... View more

I don't think that issue is related to this one.  It looks like something goes awry when upgrading from something older than 16.16 directly to 17.10.5 or 18.1.07.  The article's suggestion is to update to 18.107.1.  So, they've already got it addressed.  And if someone wanted to stay on 17.x, they could just update to any release 16.17 - 17.10.4 first, before going to 17.10.5. ... View more

I've had that happen a couple of times with an MX67.  Support claimed that there was an upstream firewall on one of the WAN circuits blocking communication, but both connections are direct to the WAN circuits. ... View more

I set up a spare MX67 and replicated the conditions.  First, it was attached to the network and downloaded a configuration.  Then it was disconnected from the WAN and left offline for a few days.  Then a computer was connected to one of the network ports.  The MX67 was found giving out the 192.16.0.x IP addresses and the local status page had reverted to the default username and password.    To me, it looks like a fail-safe mode that has the unfortunate side effect of making a major outage worse by removing access to local resources.  I could see some reasoning behind designing this type of fail-safe, but it seems the developers didn't take into account the fact that local servers tend to have static IPs. ... View more

I asked support to have engineering grep the source code for "192.16.0" to find out under what conditions the MX will fall into serving the IP range, but they won't do it.  They're asking me to put the MX into the error state (e.g. take it offline for an extended period) and then get logs.  I don't have physical access to be able to do that.  And that shouldn't be a requirement to grep the source code anyway. ... View more

That's interesting.  The service provider resolved the issue, but we found the MX still couldn't connect to the cloud controller.  So, we did factory reset it and it came back online with the correct configuration.  ... View more

17.10.2 ... View more

I did.  Support's response was to state that the MX will not reset by itself.  But that's what it has been doing. ... View more

What a technician has been doing each day is taking the MX to a location that has internet and then allowing it to download the configuration.  Then we brings it back to the site without connectivity and we confirm it is issuing the correct IP addresses.  So, it's not a case of power being required in order to sustain the storage. ... View more

If the higher security threshold is newer and the older firmware only provided the equivalent of the now lower security threshold, then it would be a reasonable ask.  However, if that is the case, then they should redo the sizing guide in both scenarios to be transparent about it. ... View more

What does Device Utilization in Organization > Summary show for the network?  I was able to counter support trying to explain an issue away with "over utilization" by showing utilization was actually fine.   In this case, a firmware bug might cause high device utilization.  But if the graph doesn't show it, you can use it as a counter argument.  In my case, they were counting total clients, which was higher than recommended, but half of the devices were IP phones that sit around doing nothing most of the day. ... View more

I have 16.x on a MX100 and several MX67s (and 17.x on one MX67), and haven't noticed any problems.  They do have advanced security and IDS is enabled.  But most of the uplinks are less than 300 Mbps.  Does the problem only manifest with faster uplinks? ... View more

Have the 17.x performance issues been resolved in this version? ... View more

17.10.2 has been moved to Stable status?  Have the performance issues been resolved? ... View more