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 PatR-31C
PatR-31C
Here to help
Member since Feb 19, 2020
Jan 18 2024
Community Record
12
Posts
2
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Just wanted to say thanks to all for the comments. Keep the info coming. We do have a vendor that we use that specializes in warehouse scanners and wifi and they will be engaged once all the initially planning is completed. The 3-4 APs per aisle is the info is pertinent for the budgeting process. Now I need to take this info an extrapolate for the smaller raw materials warehouse area and the production machinery floor.
... View more
May 14 2021
5:48 AM
The length of the aisles is what concerned me from the get go as we've never had a location this large previously. The forklifts use Honeywell Thor mobile computers and do have an external antenna on the top of the vehicle. In existing warehouse locations we have good results with those units.
... View more
May 12 2021
8:56 PM
I'm currently working on the planning/budgeting phase of a new production facility that includes a 165K sq./ft. warehouse area (roughly 400' x 400') with high racking and 13 aisles between the racks. Warehouse workers will be scanning pallets in/out using forklift mounted scanners. I was leaning towards MR46E the MA-ANT-3-F5/6 patch antenna. In previous, albeit smaller warehouse builds, we'd put an AP at the end of each aisle staggering the AP location (top or bottom) every other aisle. My big question is will that arrangement still work in the larger space? Would the signal reach down the entire aisle or would I need to double up in the aisle? Thanks as always!
... View more
Oct 22 2020
2:21 PM
Content filtering is ON. Standard no porn, no malware, no spam, etc. categories. Using the URL lookup tool, the content resolves are Business and Economy which is not a blocked category.
... View more
Oct 22 2020
2:19 PM
According to the app owners, the video is local content. I am trying to sift thru packet captures to confirm. Clients are on a subnet defined in AutoVPN. They access the application daily, just this particular content is an issue.
... View more
Oct 22 2020
1:04 PM
Thank you both for responding. Let me be clear, we are not looking to filter traffic over AutoVPN. Quite the contrary, we ran into an issue with one of our locations that uses AutoVPN to connect to the corporate network. They were connecting to an on-prem application that was delivering an HR training video and they were having issues with the video not coming up, or being intermittent. A packet capture does show some sort of block happening in which you can see the http://wired.meraki.com:8090/blocked.cgi URL being served up along with the URL of the "offending" item which in this case was an MP3 file on the on-prem server. The block on that item causes the video the stop running or they get a spinning circle forever. Of course that started the chants of "It's the network!", so we started with standard network testing and we verified the network was in good shape. While I was out of the office last week, a support ticket was opened and the Meraki support tech appeared to imply that L7 rules might be the cause (see below). "What is the address for the application that you are trying to access across the VPN? I do see some Layer 7 rules on West Nyack MX84-A and I am wondering if any of those rules are restricting/blocking traffic" As you have indicated, AutoVPN should not be affected by L7 rules which I do agree with and is the reason for the post. I'm trying to understand what could be causing the block as well as calm down my management who now think AutoVPN connections as being filtered with L7.
... View more
Oct 22 2020
9:19 AM
Can someone clarify the following for me? Do Layer3/7 rules in the Firewall section of the MX affect AutoVPN clients, or only the rules defined in the site-to-site outbound firewall section?. There seems to be a little confusion on my team and I want to settle the issue. Thanks.
... View more
Sep 8 2020
5:12 PM
Thanks for the responses. Do you think the LACP config on the MS425 was more likely the culprit than the MS350 stacks given we're talking 1 stack vs. 8?
... View more
Sep 8 2020
4:23 PM
1 Kudo
I thought the same many hours ago, but alas no. MS350 stack reboot had no effect.
... View more
Sep 8 2020
3:27 PM
Ran into an issue after updating a site to MS 12.27. After the update, clients at the site reported poor connectivity to internal systems as well as internet. Site consists of 2 x MX100 (HA Pair), 2 x MS425 as distribution stack, and 8 x MS350 access stacks. MXs connected to MS425 stack. MS350 stacks connected to MS425 stack with dual fiber in aggregated pair. MS425 stack running L3 and is the STP root. After 12.27 upgrade, clients complaining of slow connection speeds. Clients getting decent download speeds, but upload speeds almost zero. Running dual ISPs to MXs. Issue existed with both ISP links. Finally went onsite and tested the following: Tested directly from ISP handoff - no issue Tested directly from MX port - no issue Tested directly from MS425 port - no issue Testing from MS350 access switch port - ISSUE Once the issue came up at the access switch, I removed the aggregation on the uplink fibers and the problem goes away. That was a bit of a head scratcher as nothing changed in our configuration other than the firmware from 11.30 to 12.27. Those aggregated links have been on that network since it was created almost 2 years ago with no issues. I also have another location that is similarly configured and it is not exhibiting the same behavior. What could have caused or could be causing this?
... View more
Feb 21 2020
5:18 AM
Thank you for the response. The device the MX was plugged into prior to the change and after the change was an HP 8200zl switch. It is providing L3 routing. During the confusion (there was and still is a lot) we swapped out the HP 8200 switch with a MS425 and had the same issue. I understand the point you are making regarding the limit being placed on the MAC address. The issue I am having trouble resolving in my brain is that we have MXs at other sites with the same bandwidth limit setting that are plugged into similar HP L3 switches that don't exhibit the same behavior. Some use trunks, some use access ports. None of them have ever had this issue. When we put in the case with Meraki support the tech was quick to point out the bandwidth limit which got us back on track quickly, but it took us a while to get to that point because the HP switch was the focus of our troubleshooting efforts based on the fact the other MXs weren't having any issues iPerf testing clearly showed the effect of the bandwidth limit, but left me really scratching my head.
... View more
Feb 20 2020
12:11 PM
Ran into an issue last week that hit us pretty hard and left us scratching our heads. MX100 was reconfigured to use a single VLAN over an access port instead of the multiple VLAN trunks that is was using previously. The day after the change, users were complaining about slow internet speeds. Speed tests show 1Mbps download on a 300Mbps circuit. Of course, panic ensued and rather than bore everyone with the gory details, in the end it turned out that the per-client global bandwidth limit setting (20Mbps per client + SpeedBurst) was the culprit. Strange thing is that this particular MX was our first Meraki device and has had that setting for 3 years now. Other MXs at sites in our organization have the same setting. What could possibly cause that setting on that MX to behave differently? Any thoughts?
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2266 | |
| 1 | 3178 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
