This is simply what Azure will charge you for bandwidth.  You don't get to choose anything.   Yes, a vMX in Azure would be a good choice.   Here are the deployment instructions: https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Installation_Guides/vMX100_Setup_Guide_for_Microsoft_Azure ... View more

HA is not available with vMX in Azure.   I wasn't aware Azure had different types of "Internet circuits" available to choose from - what are your options? ... View more

> @PhilipDAthHow you are you liking the MX67?  I wish the "simultaneous connection" limits of these firewalls were > posted and you could actually see that detail in the dashboard.  I've got a MX80 that needs to be replaced, and I'm > trying to figure out if I can get by with a 67 or not.  It's a small network, but sits in front of a couple pretty active servers.   It's going great so far.  As others have said, you need to choose the MX based on the number of devices you have in your network, as that is the only sizing information published that relates to your network. ... View more

 Thank you @CarolineS and everyone else who voted.  That was actually quite a bit of work! ... View more

Also note that 25.12 is the current stable firmware - not 25.11. ... View more

They look cool @Adam! ... View more

This is usually related to client firmware - however you can disable client load balancing on the MR53's.   You need to go into Wireless/Radios Settings and edit the profile to disable "Client Balancing". Note you can only do this if you are actually using a profile. If you are using the default profiles you'll need to create a new one first.  You can read over this document if you fall into this case: https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/Radio_Settings/RF_Profiles ... View more

Could you put the old SonicWall behind the HO MX 100? You won't be able to build a third party VPN to the MX with a default encryption domain. ... View more

Perhaps plug the MX's into the "Link Balancer" and the core switch.  Then just change the routing on your core switches to direct traffic at either the ASA or MX as you desire.   You probably wont want to other with dynamic routing in this case.  Site 1 has a supernet of 192.168.0.0/20 and site 2 has a supernet of 192.168.16.0/21.  You will probably end up with only half a dozen static routes. ... View more

Here is another "before and after".   ... View more

What grade of fibre have you got installed?  It should be written on the side wall of the fibre.   If you change to using MA-SFP-10GB-SR then OM3 can go about 300m at 10Gbe.  OM4 is good for 400m.  I hope you don't still have OM2 - but it can do around 82m.   I don't use MA-SFP-10GB-LRM with multimode fibre (OM3-4) - even thought it works, because you suffer a reduced range.  So I only use MA-SFP-10GB-LRM when customers have single mode fibre, such as OS1 or OS2 (and the range is 220m).     No optical SFP or SFP+ supports multiple speeds.  If you need to drop back to Gigabit then you should get something like MA-SFP-1GB-SX (assuming you are using multi-mode OM1[1-4]).  If you are using single mode (OS1 or OS2) then you would need to use the expensive MA-SFP-1GB-LX10.   This datasheet is a good guide. https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_sfp.pdf ... View more

I'm going to guess it is related to the APN you are using with AT&T.  I'm not from your part of the world, so I'm not familiar with the APNs offered by AT&T.   Ideally you want an APN that gives you a public IP address and is not firewalled.  Second choice would be an APN with a public IP address. ... View more

Those specs will need no adjustment.   An MX84 will be idling along with only 50Mb/s of load and 15 users.  An MX64 would also be idling along with this much load. ... View more

>Then I have a test laptop on vlan 1201 also on the Meraki side, streams seems ok for a little bit and then starts going bad. Then I move the laptop to an access vlan 63 for example for PIM to kick in, same issue seems to work a bit then starts going bad.   Are you sure the links between the switches are configured for auto/auto (or at least have matching speed/duplex)?     You are reminding me of another job I did (long ago, using Cisco Enterprise switches).  When the streams go bad - do they simply fail? I was helping a radio station once.  They were generating a huge number of multicast streams, and the streams would work for a while and then simply stop.  After doing some Wireshark captures for a while I found the IGMP queries downstream where sending a query to the multicast originator to verify that the stream was still valid (specifically a member) (otherwise if the multicast originator software crashes the stream will continue to exist until the switches next get rebooted). What was happening was the multicast originator failed to respond to these queries asking if the stream was still active, and after a period of time (can't remember, something like 3 to 5 minutes) the switches cut off the streams because of no response. It worked on some other switches that didn't do regular IGMP member query checks.   It ended up having to go back to the multicast originator vendor to get their software fixed. ... View more

The the device configured for generating the multicast source is using the standard MTU of 1500 then anything else along the path with a higher MTU will not contribute to the issue. ... View more

An MX84 is suitable for up to 200 users and 500Mb/s of throughput.  If you are operating within these specifications you are fine. ... View more

Is the MS410 running as the multicast router? Is the MS250 running as an IGMP querier?   I suspect the multicast origin should be plugged in at the multicast router.  I am wondering if this is related to how the multicast tree is being built.   It would be an interesting test to plug the multicast source into the MS410 (assuming it is the multicast router). ... View more

On the layer 3 interface are you using "Enable IGMP Snooping querier" or "Enable multicast routing group"?  Perhaps try the other option.   I think this is going to end up being a support cast because it is sounding like a bug to me. ... View more

The 10.x firmware has massive improvements around multicast.  If you are not using that make that your first thing to change.   What model Meraki switch are you using?   Have you tried enabling the option to flood unknown multicast traffic?   Is the Meraki switch just doing layer 2, or is it configured to do layer 3 with VLAN interfaces? ... View more