Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About nikmagashi
Community Record
49
Posts
11
Kudos
1
Solution
Badges
Jun 1 2023
12:41 AM
Hi, I need some information regarding the licensing of MX68CW. What kind of a license can I use for it in order to be able to manage it through dashboard. Can I use an MX68 license for it? BR
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Other
Apr 25 2023
12:43 AM
We have a fortigate on the HQ and MX67 on the branch office. I called today meraki support and they helped me with this problem. They activated the NAT feature where I could later choose to disable the NAT on the internet port on meraki or even on the specific vlan if I want to. Of course this should be taken with precaution since the inbound rules are in allow state now but we do have a firewall on the HQ which controll everything.
... View more
Apr 24 2023
11:27 AM
Hi, We have an mpls line from HQ to a branch office. We had on both sites fortigates and worked good. On the branch office we replaced the fortigate with a MX67 and now we are having problems with the traffic that comes from the HQ to the branch office. The mpls line terminates in internet port in the MX67. So all the trafic from the MX is sent through the mpls to the HQ firewall. We can ping the networks on the HQ from the MX67 internal vlans, but doing it from the HQ to the branch offices MX the ping never respond back. I know it might have something with the NAT on the internet port on the MX but I need to be sure if someone has had the same issue. When I look at the route table I see a default route 0.0.0.0/0 through the wan interface. It worth mentioning that I have not created any static route on the MX! BR
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Firewall
Nov 24 2022
2:52 AM
All right, so If I want to allow the 3rd party endpoint (their network, lets say 10.0.2.0/24) to talk with only one host on my end (for example 10.0.1.10/32) then I allow first only the source 10.0.1.10/32 to talk to 10.0.2.0/24 and then deny source 10.0.1.0/24 to destination 10.0.2.0/24. with these two rules the other part would be able to talk only to that specific IP adress but not to the entire network. Is my logic correct?
... View more
Nov 24 2022
1:49 AM
Hi, I need to create an IPsec tunnel with another peer (which is not an MX) and then we need to gice acces to the other side only to one host on our side. I guess I have to put the entire network of the other peer under the private subnet but then how should I controll what talk to what. Is it by creating rules under the site-to-site outbound firewall rules or should I create those rules on the Security & SD-WAN -> Firewall? Or is it maybe some other way to do it? BR
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
3rd Party VPN
-
ACLs
-
Firewall
Nov 7 2022
1:35 AM
Hi, I am trying to configure the cisco anyconnect authentication with meraki MX but I am having some problems. I have configured the Anyconnect Settings but I am geting this error when trying to connect via anyconnect: 10:17:23 Connection attempt has failed. 10:17:24 No valid certificates available for authentication. 10:17:24 Connection attempt has failed. The Certificate Authentication is disabled on the meraki settings for Anyconnect. I dont see any other settings with certificates references on meraki Client VPN which I can try and change. Has anyone been through this before or has any suggestion?
... View more
Sep 20 2022
1:51 AM
2 Kudos
Thank you Philip. It did work, your memory seems to be right. 🙂
... View more
Sep 19 2022
1:13 AM
Hi, We have an issue which is affecting several users and seems to be linked to the network they end up on. The problem comes up when users work remote and connects through meraki vpn, and Windows tries to use the VPN login as a login to the network share. We use users email addresses on the meraki Client VPN with Meraki Cloud Authentication. They are not the same login. Users only gets the error that the network share does not exist and if you try to manually connect the network share, the login is not accepted at all. We did not do any change on the meraki side prior to this and not after. Has anyone been in the same boat before and found a solution to this problem? Thanks for all the help.
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Client VPN
Oct 24 2021
12:23 PM
Thanks a lot PhilipDAth, I think one-arm vpn concentrator is a solution here as we can standardize this and manage it easier.
... View more
Oct 21 2021
6:42 AM
Hi, We are in need for a device which will be connected to one of our fortigate in our datacenter via vpn tunnel. We are looking for something flexible and easy to deploy and we set sight to Z3C. Is there any problem with Z3C when it comes to establishing VPN tunnels with fortigate? BR Nik
... View more
Feb 1 2021
11:24 PM
1 Kudo
Hmm all right, so this is something that needs to be checked. I will make a wish for it 🙂
... View more
Feb 1 2021
12:43 PM
Hi, I am trying to create a vpn tunnel with a non-meraki device but it is failing on phase-2. My appliance current version is MX 14.53 and we are using IKEv1. We are using sha1 for authentication on both phase1 and phase2. Phase1 is being successfully established but not phase2. The other side is using route-based vpn and I saw on different post here that both auto-vpn and non-meraki vpn tunnels are policy-based vpn. My question is, if I upgrade the MX to 15.42 (latest version available), will route-based be supported then?
... View more
Nov 4 2020
3:39 AM
Hi Bruce, When you are saying "The notable exception to this is signalling to a SBC for which Microsoft Teams uses SIP, and the rules “All VoIP and Video Conferencing” should catch this" does this mean that the All VoIP and Video Conferencing will catch or will not, the video traffic?
... View more
Nov 4 2020
12:10 AM
Hi, I am trying to configure QoS on meraki MX84 and I have only configured it here. We have non-meraki switches and APs so I have started first with MX first. I have created rules under SD WAN & traffic shaping and created 5 rules (the default one is disabled). Rule #1: Definition: All VoIP & video conferencing Bandwidth limit: Obey network per-client limit Priority: High DSCP Tagging: AF11 All the other rules are the same when it comes to definition, bandwidth limit and priority but they have other DSCP tagging. I have configured AF21 for rule #2, AF31 for rule #3, for rule #4 is AF41 and for rule #5 I took CS0/DF - Best effort/Default forwarding. Are these settings supposed to work for optimizing Video Conference on Teams? Thank you in advance!
... View more
Oct 7 2020
5:47 AM
Hi Bruce, I was able to pinpoint the problem. It was because I have activated IKEv2 via meraki support for the working one (tunnel) but the other site, the appliance was running the below 15.x version. IKEv2 was not supported for that firmware. After upgrade to the version 15.x it started to work. The vpn tunnel is upp and running now. Thank you again for taking your time to help me. Cheers 🙂
... View more
Oct 7 2020
1:48 AM
Hi Bruce, We have created the tunnels on Azure, all these are pointing to the local MXs public IP addresses, they have their own local network gateways (with subnets included) but these are still down on Azure. They use the same Azure VPN gateway (just for illustration ex. 1.1.1.1). The meraki site-to-site vpn tunnel points to that public IP (1.1.1.1). Tunnels in Azure use the same preshare key as the tunnel in meraki dashboard. Have we missed something? Does the tunnel in meraki dashboard applies parallell to all the other tunnels in Azure?
... View more
Oct 4 2020
1:35 AM
All right, when I think again it sounds logical. Thank you very much Bruce and I wish you a very good sunday 🙂
... View more
Oct 3 2020
3:40 PM
So If I have understood you correctly, the IPSec VPN (non-meraki VPN) created on the MX portal is ok, and it will work for all the other site and not only for site A, BUT I need more tunnels on Azure in order to reach every site behind MXs, f.ex. one tunnel on MX portal pointing on Azure, then on Azure two tunnels pointing on the public IP addresses of Site A and Site B MXs? The VPN clients gets IPs from this range 192.168.20.0/24 and I have added this on the non-meraki IPSec VPN on MX portal under private subnet and it is working as I mentioned before to reach the resources attached behind the MX on site A (probably because the azure engineer has created the IPSec tunnel pointing only to the public IP address of the site A)! Does that mean that the tunnel in Azure is only pointing on the MX which is located on site A, and I should ask to create another tunnel on azure to point on the site C also? You mentioned that I have to include the subnets at each MX site in the VPN? I don´t understand this, where I should include these? Which settings should I look for in order to includes these?
... View more
Oct 3 2020
2:38 AM
The IPSec is created under the Security -> Site-to-site VPN on the non-Meraki VPN peers. The tunnel is visible in every site on the meraki portal. For example if I go over to another site the ipsec tunnel is always there, like the site-to-site outbound firewall rules. On the Azure we have a VPN Client server which users connect to. Do I need to add the IP subnet which the users gets IP from on the Addressing & VLANs and to check the "In VPN" so that these users will be able to be routeable on the other sites aswell?
... View more
Oct 2 2020
3:57 AM
Hi, We have some resources on azure, and users are having problem to reach the resources on the other sites via meraki mx. for better understanding we have these sites: - Site A (meraki MX) - SIte B (AZURE) - Site C (meraki MX) We have an IPSec tunnel between Azure - Site B and Site A (meraki MX). And then we have Site C which is connected with Site A. Lets say Site A where the meraki MX is, the resources behind this router are reachable from site B (Azure), but the resources on the other site (site C) are not reachable from the site B (Azure). I suppose that when it comes to rules, I am good there, because I create site to site rules and opened from the interested sites. And when it comes to routing I also assume that there automatically created. I just don´t get where is the missing point here! I dont have any rules created in Security->Firewall. Rules are created under Site-to-site VPN, so why is it working for some resources but not for other resources. Is there an issue with routing? But then again isn´t routing managed automatically between the sites!
... View more
Sep 15 2020
3:48 AM
Hi, I have three APs (one MR56 and two MR55) which are not working as expected. The network speed for the computers is very very slow (it is running on kbps), but it is working fine for mobile phones. I don´t have anything configured for traffic shaping. I have tried changing the radio settings (we are using basic indoor profile), f.ex. enabling the band steering on dual band operation, but no improve, then I disabled the 802.11ax but still no improve. I have tried things I thought might help but nothing helped. Can someone please advice what can I do to fix this issue? Best regards
... View more
Aug 19 2020
3:53 AM
I think I have figured it out! The shared secret seems to be the pre shared key you use when configuring the vpn settings on the client. But I still have some questions regarding the client IP on the NPS. On the meraki MX I have a some vlans (lots of MX IP) and of course the public IP. Which IP should be as a client radius on the NPS! Can I choose one of the mx ips as a radius client on the NPS?
... View more
Aug 19 2020
3:20 AM
All right but what about the share secret above? Because this is very confusing for me! I have tried to put the same key on both fields but it is now working. The client is not being able to connect.
... View more
Aug 19 2020
2:51 AM
Hi, We are going to use Meraki VPN Client, with Azure MFA, but we are experiencing some problem. The client is not able to connect. The shared secret is correct, but under the radius server setting, there is a field for another secret, which we think is a different value then the shared secret. Can someone explain what is this secret and where do we find this.
... View more
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 4115 | May 25 2020 12:49 AM |
My Top Kudoed Posts
© 2025 Cisco Systems, Inc.
