Wouldn't have affected my deployments at least as we're exclusively Wi-Fi 6/6E. I note there is a new known issue introduced with 29.6.1 "In high capacity wireless networks APs may experience instability when the “Client Balancing” or "Band Steering" feature are enabled".   That one would impact us.. think we might 'steer' clear for now. Also, do this mean that the previous bug fixes from the v29.6 release that was pulled are included in this? ... View more

Has anyone got any insight as to why this was suddenly pulled after a few days? ... View more

That is a rabbit hole I probably couldn't answer entirely within character limits! A couple of points though:   - I wouldn't normally equate a warehouse environment with high-throughput client requirements. Is there a specific need to maximise throughput or is this just 'nice to have'?   - As always, recommend getting a wireless survey done of the area you are looking to work with. The more granular and detailed your requirements provided for the survey are, the more accurate it will be.   - Don't touch RX-SOP unless you know what you're playing with! Easy to cause problems with it hence Meraki's sizeable warning when you go to enable it.   - 160 MHz channel width should be fine due to the PSD changes, you're only running 1x AP in this area and assuming definitely no obstructions. Note the clients will need to support 160 MHz channel widths in 6 GHz as well though and don't blast TxPower at max!   - Do you have an existing AP providing 2.4/5 GHz coverage? FSPL characteristics between 5/6 GHz are quite similar so you might be able to just swap an AP out without moving it (survey can confirm). This page provides a nice chart showing the FSPL comparisons between 2.4, 5 & 6 GHz ... View more

Depends what you're looking for and where in the world you are. If you're looking to just test 'max throughput' you'll need to set channel width to 160 MHz and make sure you're close to the AP. Your 'max speed' might be less than the same test performed with a Wi-Fi NIC that is 4x4 not just 2x2.   If you're looking for what to deploy for production.. I'd say the majority of people will deploy it with 40 MHz or 80 MHz channel widths depending on whether their regulatory domain has opened up the full 1200 MHz worth of spectrum ... View more

It was definitely available as a stable RC the other day as I've deployed it to a few Networks. I am also not seeing it now as an option to upgrade to.   I do note however the Networks that did get upgraded show v29.6 Firmware type as 'General Availability' not 'Release Candidate' ... View more

Not great QA but it is only in Beta so always a risk... ... View more

It would be amazing if Cisco could port some of their Intel Connectivity Analytics work over to Meraki, even if only to be able to identify where client drivers are out of date! ... View more

Do the same check with LLDP enabled on the switch if you are not already using it. We had PoE isues with the CW9164s when running CDP only, all sorted once LLDP was enabled and AP restarted and power re-negotiated via LLDP ... View more

Eyeballing it from a floor plan is one rung up from chucking them anywhere and hoping for the best. You should look in to getting at least a predictive wireless survey done which can at least take the requirements and variables (such as wall materials/glass/etc..) and generate a 'proposed' deployment ... View more

Have the correct VLAN setup on your SSIDs? We have over 30 individual networks running on 29.4.1 with no DHCP issues.. ... View more

Try enabling LLDP if you haven't already, we've had the odd issue negotiating power levels via CDP only ... View more

Were these any additional rules beyond the required 7351/7734/7752 + 443 to get to Meraki Dashboard? ... View more

Anyone had any further luck rolling back to v28.x to stabilise this issue? Feels like we're hoping v29.6 comes along soon with a fix..? ... View more

I'm in this boat too in Aus, patiently waiting for whatever regulation they need to go through so I can play! ... View more

Haven't used either in production but one advantage the CW9166 has vs MR57 is the dual-persona feature where it can be flipped to run in Cisco Catalyst mode on a 9800 WLC. This might be redundant however if you'll never need this feature.   If you only care about 5/6 GHz radios you could consider the CW9164 as well as it has 4x4:4 radios? The trade off being it has 1x 2.5Gbps Ethernet vs dual-5Gbps on the MR57/9166 and can't run in dual-5 GHz mode ... View more

Agree with comments about going for thw CW916x-MR APs although a CW9166 vs MR36 is very different spec-wise, a CW9162 is more aligned with that and a CW9164 aligns with the MR46.   The main thing for me is future proofing with the 6E capability, depending on your reg domain you might be able to enable that from day 1 and marvel at the speedtest results 😉 ... View more

1. Definitely check latest NIC drivers are installed 2. Has anything changed recently.. are the MR56's new? Are the laptops new? ... View more

No problem, certainly will be testing it! ... View more

Ooh interesting, I was expecting a reply saying all is working haha!   What type of issue & APs have you got if you don't mind me asking? ... View more

I noted on that last line that reason code 265 was given which links to "The certificate chain was issued by an authority that is not trusted."   There has been commentary around Credential Guard (enabled by default in W11 Education & Enterprise) blocking machine auth methods, but I'm note sure if this blocks manual connections.   I had a look around and found this post on the MS community, different NPS code but notably a comment saying:   "The computers would not authenticate automatically, but when following the dialog boxes we could get them to authenticate by manually telling the computer to try...."   "Our Windows 10 computers worked without flaws. After reading this thread I decided to check my Group Policy and the only difference is that I was not specifying the servers they could authenticate to, so I was not having the problem with the case mismatch. I found the fix to be checking the box next to my domain CA in the Trusted Root Certification Authorites section below the box where you can specify which servers to connect to." Another external thread I found also talked about case mismatch:   "We had a GPO that pushed out the Cert to the clients and our NPS server was lowercase in that GPO and the server end is capitalized. It was never an issue with the Windows 10 machines but I guess Windows 11 has some additional security that capitalization matters. Was an easy fix but not an obvious one."   ... View more

Hey @RaphaelL just seeing if you rolled out 29.5 in the end, no problems? ... View more

Echo both @pjc and @Shawn_Kingston 's comments really. We are coming from a Cisco world and so waiting for new releases to be tested and reported on by early adopters is a built in mechanism for us.   That being said, even with a stable release that's been out for a while you never know what edge cases your own envrionment will uncover! We're lucky enough to have a standalone test environment to pilot our upgrades with.   If we didn't then we'd likely wait until the automated Meraki 'we're going to upgrade your MR firmware for you' email comes through and we then get somewhat nudged to then upgrade ... View more

It is a sizeable rabbit hole for sure! ... View more

This information is wildly inaccurate without context applied i.e. 802.11ax 'User will get 10 Gbps of maximum speed' is just straight up incorrect unless stated as 'theoretical' in nature only. ... View more

So escalate it to your account rep instead of getting snarky and mopey in here? You asked for suggestions and people are offering some, including an actual Meraki employee ... View more