Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About DunJer622
DunJer622
Building a reputation
Member since Jan 31, 2018
Apr 15 2021
Community Record
76
Posts
9
Kudos
1
Solution
Badges
Apr 9 2018
9:53 AM
OK. For no apparent reason, as I haven't changed anything for over an hour, the primary switch went green with a management VLAN IP. I then changed it to the preferred data VLAN IP and it took it and started responding. One odd thing is that it is identifying the RSTP Root as the secondary switch. I'd think that it would see itself. Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Apr 9 2018
9:37 AM
Argh... That is what I was looking for, but couldn't remember where it was at! Thanks for pointing it out. Unchecked it this morning and it worked just fine. Thanks again. Jeremy
... View more
Apr 9 2018
9:35 AM
Good morning. I had an ISP issue over the weekend, so I just got back to this matter this morning. Thanks for the details. I followed your suggestions, but I keep running into a few problems. The primary concern is that the phones are now picking up a data VLAN (20) address, instead of a voice VLAN (30) address. The other issue is that the switch keeps stating that "DNS is misconfigured". As such, the status never turns green, being yellow instead. I also notice that the RSTP Root never resolves. I also noticed that the clients (a laptop in this case) is not listing the correct port, as it is stating that it is in port 23, which is currently an uplink to a second switch. the laptop is actually connected to a phone that is connected to port 1 on the switch. The laptop is getting the correct address. Any ideas? Oh, one other thing. As my network is 10.20.10.0/24, my standard practice is to have my switches statically assigned addresses in the same network. In this case, the IPs would be 10.20.10.20 and 10.20.10.21 for these switches. Before the addition of the Meraki Management VLAN (1), the IPs were accessible. Now they are not. Trying to statically assign them seems to be ignored. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
Apr 6 2018
2:55 PM
Greetings, I'm pretty close to having my first full Meraki setup configured, but I've ran into a snag. It appears that my site-to-site VPN (not client) is not split-tunneling. Instead, it is sending all traffic across the spoke's Internet. I've got custom name servers in place, which require the VPN to be active, but I've done that for years with SonicWALL hardware VPNs. I don't see any way to force split-tunneling (like a checkbox), so I'm hoping that I just overlooked something. Any advise would be very appreciated. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
Apr 6 2018
2:27 PM
Thanks, HTH. That got me moving again. I was able to replicate my previous setup, so that is progress. So, now onto the next effort. Currently, I have 2 physical ports (1 for data and 1 for voice) coming from the MX65 into the MS120. Now I'm trying to reduce the link to a single cable from the MX65 to the MS120 (uplink). I've tried multiple combinations of trunk and access configurations of the ports on both the MX65 and the MS120, but all configs have failed, with the phone usually failing to see the DHCP server or the computer behind the phone gets a voice VLAN IP. Am I overlooking something simple, or am I stuck with using 2 separate ports? Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Apr 6 2018
12:04 PM
Greetings, Is there any good documentation for setting up a voice VLAN on an MS120-24P? Just when I think I'm getting the hang of Meraki, I run into another detour. The decision was made to leave the HP/Aruba 2530 line to go with the MS120 line. With the HP switches, I'd simply create the VLANs (data, voice, etc.), define the voice VLAN as such (along with QoS and prioritization), assign them to ports, and then tag all voice traffic and untag all data traffic. With SonicWALL routers, I'd use separate ports for uplinks (1 data and 1 voice). At this point, I can connect one of my VoIP phones to the switch and it would get a DHCP-assigned IP address on the voice VLAN. I can then connect a computer to the back of the phone and that computer will get a DHCP-assigned IP address on the data VLAN. I'm struggling mightily to replicate this on my Meraki setup (MX65 is doing DHCP). I've clicked on the Configuring Voice VLANs link within Advance MS Setup Guide, but it is rather useless. This is a very big deal for us. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
Apr 5 2018
8:19 AM
The domain name isn't provided. Is it the the domain name that is generated on the router?
... View more
Apr 5 2018
7:41 AM
I thought this may be the case, but the name doesn't resolve or respond to ping, even when directly connected to the router (MX65). This suggests to me that the name is simply cosmetic. The hostname associated with the MX65 is resolvable and pingable. I'll have to look more into the MS120 to see if I'm blocking something.
... View more
Apr 4 2018
1:29 PM
Greetings, Can a hostname be applied to a Meraki switch? I know you can do it with the routers, but I'm not seeing a way to do it with the switch (MS120). While you don't really need it within the Meraki dashboard, I'm looking to be able to apply a consistent naming convention for my Meraki devices, per site. Those hostnames will then be listed within our DNS servers and used by a separate (non-Meraki) monitoring and reporting tool. I appreciate any assistance. Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Mar 19 2018
8:09 AM
Perhaps it is just the verbiage that I get hung up on. I'd done the VLAN and GP creation, but it was the assigning of it that was causing me grief. So, in this case, as one of my defined VLANs is 101, within the SSID config page, I'd select Use VLAN tagging and enter 101 in the box next to All other APs?
... View more
Mar 19 2018
7:43 AM
Thanks for the reply. I had previously tried utilizing GP, but couldn't find a way to have the separate networks and apply them... and I still can't. I don't see how using bridge mode works for this, but I'll keep investigating. I'm obviously missing a step... or more.
... View more
Mar 19 2018
7:14 AM
Greetings, As I continue on my bumpy road of Meraki discovery, I've again needed to pull off to the side of the road and make sure I'm not holding the map upside down. In this case, I'm looking to setup multiple Wi-Fi SSIDs within any given environment. With SonicWALL, I'd simply create the required zones and interfaces, then create the virtual access profile and groups. The end result would be an access point (or more) getting an address (from WLAN pool) from the router, broadcasting 3 Wi-Fi SSIDs with specific subnets (again, provided from the router). For example, I'd set a location up with the following: Secure Wi-Fi, broadcast, 2.4 and 5GHz, 10.50.30.0/24 (DHCP scope 10.50.30.30-10.50.30.240), WPA2, specific content filter policy Therap Wi-Fi, hidden, 2.4 and 5GHz, 192.168.0.0/24 (DHCP scope 192.168.0.30-192.168.0.240), WPA2, specific content filter policy Client Wi-Fi, broadcast, 2.4 and 5GHz, 10.11.30.0/24 (DHCP scope 10.11.30.30-10.11.30.240), WPA2, specific content filter policy WAP(s) would be on the 10.40.30.0/24 network. With Meraki, I'm struggling to create the same setup WITH content filtering. What am I missing? What is Meraki's plan with content filtering? For our environments, our Secure Wi-Fi has strict content filtering, while Therap and Client have reduced, but still present, content filtering. None of our Wi-Fi interacts with the wired LAN environments, which also have their own content filtering rules. We have VERY different user groups for each environment (with some crossover), so different content filtering rules are important. With Meraki, it seems to be more "all or nothing". Currently, we don't use AD or RADIUS authentication. I expect that we'll implement AD and RADIUS, but we're still going to have networks that don't rely on either. I appreciate any assistance that can be provided. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
Mar 2 2018
8:14 AM
1 Kudo
Wade, if you could only have gave me this info before I stayed up until 2am figuring it out. 😉 Yeah, it looks like AD Authentication is the issue. I disabled it last night and was able to see improvement in pretty short order. I didn't have any luck making adjustments with the domain control to avoid the CPU issues. As such, I'm leaving it disabled, for now, but will want to figure out what needs to be done to make it work nicely with my DCs.
... View more
Mar 1 2018
4:23 PM
Greetings, This may be a bit of a needle in a needlestack, at the moment, but here goes. I've been testing a Meraki VPN in parallel with my production network (SonicWALL). I have a MX64 currently serving as a hub (yes, I'd go with a bigger model at a later point) and it is connected directly to our core switch stack. I then have a static ip router assigned on the switch pointing to the Meraki network. I then setup a remote network (MX64) and setup a VPN. A couple of learning moments later, the VPN was up and running and functionality testing commenced. Aside from some minor disappointments (noted in other messages), the VPN and network seem to work fine. Fast forward a week. I'm troubleshooting performance issues with my primary domain controller (Windows Server 2012 R2). For no real apparent reason, the CPU is spiking (99%) and memory is being inhaled. The processes suggest WMI or DNS, but I can't find anything wrong. Nothing has changed with the environment and a reboot of services (and finally the server) made no difference. So, why the heck is this dude posting here? Fair question. Getting to that. After not finding anything leading to answers, I did find a posting of a potential DHCP server conflict. My Meraki MX64 units are serving as DHCP servers. So, I disable the DHCP server on the core unit, as I don't need DHCP. No real change. So, I decide to disconnect the core Meraki completely from the core switch and the domain controller immediately went back to normal. Great! Well, except I need to make a Meraki network. Not great. So, I reconnect the core MX64 and sever the VPN to the endpoint MX64. Again, the domain controller immediately starts acting normally. So, now I come to you, the Meraki community, hoping that someone else has ran into this before and can point me in the right direction. What could be wrong (or at least need to be accounted for) with my remote MX64 (or network)? I need DHCP enabled. I have a super basic config. Its a home network, so there isn't significant traffic flowing. Whatever it is, it seems to be impacting my domain controller in 5 minute cycles. I'm currently working to strip down my home network, to help isolate points of interest, but I wanted to get this out there, in case someone knew where to start. I appreciate any assistance. Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Feb 18 2018
12:12 PM
Greetings, WANKiller. I'm running the MX with the full list. Yes, I have read all documentation associated with content filtering, and it states exactly how it should work (and how I would expect it to work). However, my testing is showing otherwise. I'm trying to determine if that is common or not. I realize that this is a Meraki community, but I'm hoping that it is an honest community regarding Meraki products. I'm not here to bash anything. I just want to make sure that I set realistic expectations for management. We are moving away from SonicWALL because their support generally sucks. Overall, I think I've answered more questions for them then they have for me. My understanding is that Meraki has very good support. That is awesome, but I do need to have the products work as advertised. If there are quirks, they are not necessarily showstoppers. I just don't want to chase answers that aren't there. This particular issue should be pretty easy. If I whitelist powerball.com, I expect to get to www.powerball.com and whatever.powerball.com. I expect that to happen as soon as I save the config. If that is an unrealistic expectation, I need to understand why. I had to remove the 'gambling' category to be able to consistently access the site. The only time I had any issues like this with SonicWALL, it was because of a redirect or HTTPS. That is not the case here. There are parts of Meraki that I greatly appreciate. I just need to better understand the other parts. Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Feb 17 2018
11:21 PM
FIRMWARE Up to date Current version: MX 13.28
... View more
Feb 17 2018
10:51 PM
1 Kudo
I realize that I'm pretty new to Meraki, but is Meraki Content Filtering really poor, or am I just getting really lucky at finding issues? Intentionally, I enable the blocking of a lot of categories, as I wanted to see what it classified correctly and how it handled it. First problem identified was that playboy.com was NOT blocked as pornography. At first, I thought that the filtering may have been really good, as playboy.com no longer has nudity (at least that is my understanding), but pornhub.com was blocked immediately. Again, all seems good. Then, a week later, playboy.com is blocked. Not sure why the delay, but I'd like to know (as I don't need any of my employees going to porn). Continuing on with testing, I find that www.powerball.com is block as 'gambling'. OK, I get that. However, as I'm testing at home, I want to open it up. So, within 'Whitelisted URL patterns', I enter powerball.com and save. Nope. www.powerball.com. Nope. *.powerball.com. Nope. Http://www.powerball.com. Nope. Sometimes, it isn't even telling me the reason for the site to be block (no category listed). I have more examples, but you get the idea. This is not good. For my users' own good (and for our company), I block a lot of categories with my SonicWALL firewall. Should a site get block, it is crystal clear why a site is blocked and I was able to script (within SonicWALL) the ability for users to send us a snapshot of the blocked attempt. With Meraki, the user is going to have to manually copy and paste (not the end of the world), but if I can't readily make exceptions for the user, that is going to be a major problem. Is this a known issue, or am I overlooking something? I'm seeing some other forums tearing Meraki content filtering apart, but I'm hoping they are wrong. Thanks, Jeremy
... View more
Feb 15 2018
7:33 AM
@Mr_IT_Guy At the time, I was working in an environment that was inside the router distributing the public IP. As I didn't have a loopback rule in place for the public IP, I was trying to use my phone to access the public IP. For whatever reason, it didn't work and I spent no more time on it, as I had local access. However, now that I'm at home, I can log into the static IP just fine and indeed get to the port config page, which is exactly what I was looking for. So, I now have everything configured correctly and the VPN is working just fine. Now on to figuring out routing on these units... 😉 Thanks for the help.
... View more
Feb 14 2018
12:41 PM
Adam, I only see "Local device status page" within Device Configuration.
... View more
Feb 14 2018
12:39 PM
DCooper, do you mean firmware? If so, I'm on MX 13.28.
... View more
Feb 14 2018
11:45 AM
I'll have to keep testing, but that is not working for me. If I put in the IP address in for either WAN port, it simply times out. Have I overlooked a setting that allows remote access to the public IP(s)?
... View more
Feb 14 2018
11:25 AM
Thanks for the response, JFM-FL. I had done local access for configuring the port 4, but I was hoping that I could make WAN 1 changes via the web interface. Having to be directly connected is going to be a very inconvenient element for my remote sites. My hope was that the Meraki cloud management was going to be more capable. Well, still figuring Meraki out, as it way different than all the other routers that I've worked with. Jeremy
... View more
Feb 14 2018
10:15 AM
I hope I'm missing something really simple, but how do you configure both the WAN 1 and WAN 2 ports to be static? In this case, I configured much of the unit via DHCP into the Internet port. I then changed port 4 to be WAN, with a static IP (with Internet port still DHCP). At that point, I connected the ISP modem to port 4 and connected Internet port to a non-DHCP ISP modem). After that, I checked the device's status and saw the WAN was that of port 4. I can't find any way to configure WAN 1 (Internet port) with the correct static IP info. If I disconnect port 4 and reconnect WAN 1 to DCHP, the unit gets back on the Internet, but it won't let me change the WAN info to static. I just get a yellow "!" and it never accepts the change. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated, as I'm on a tight timeline for testing and, hopefully, deployment. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
Feb 7 2018
12:36 PM
Thanks for the responses. I've ordered another MX64 for Meraki-to-Meraki testing, with a parallel connection with my production network. This is all PoC. I'll then replace the "hub" MX64 with an MX100 or MX400, depending on my ultimate design and an understanding of 'connections'. I was a little disappointed that the non-Meraki interaction wasn't better, but I guess it is to be expected. I'm getting by in my testing for now, but will be glad to have the second unit. The SonicWALL is making some of the testing tough, if not impossible. Anyhow, again, thanks for the replies. Jeremy
... View more
Jan 31 2018
2:11 PM
Greetings, We're a SonicWALL shop that is looking to potentially move to Meraki. I'm new to Meraki, so I am in the process of crash-course learning. It is looking like we'll be swapping out our EOL TZ200 and TZ205 units with MX64 units. That said, I'm in the early stages of R&D and PoC. As we have an existing network, we're looking to gradually transition the implementation of the Meraki units. So, onto my questions. Can I create a VPN with the MX64 to my SonicWALL NSA E5500 (network core router)? The short answer is "yes", as I was able to use the Non-Meraki Peers section. However, I had to setup the MX64 as the hub, as it would not let me assign it as a spoke (due to no hubs being identified in the organization). Am I setting up this VPN correctly? I'm concerned about adding the next MX64, as it will see the 1st MX64 as a hub. Do I have to just keep setting up the MX64 units as hubs and then setup the non-Meraki Peer to the SonicWALL each time? I could be doing 30+ locations this year. Would it be more prudent to swap out the SonicWALL hub with an MX100 or MX400 first? This would obviously interrupt my entire network greatly and lead to a repeat effort on the VPNs. With the VPN that I have created, I don't see how to setup failover for the actual VPN, should the SonicWALL hub's primary Internet fail. With my SonicWALL endpoints, I can simply enter the primary and secondary IPs of the hub and the endpoints will automatically re-establish the VPN on the secondary IP, should the primary fail. Can I do the same with Meraki? Can I do it with an MX64 to a non-Meraki router (hub)? I appreciate any assistance that anyone can provide. I've scoured the online documentation without success. Thank you, Jeremy
... View more
- « Previous
- Next »
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2803 | Feb 5 2019 8:56 AM |
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 9935 | |
| 1 | 7069 | |
| 1 | 6000 | |
| 1 | 8490 | |
| 1 | 8508 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
