@ValleyITPC wrote: That was a mouthful but I read the entirety and enjoyed it. [...] Still cannot do this on the MX65. I can't seem to track down any MX64's at the moment to check. Yeah, @ValleyITPC, I knew I was getting carried away (almost decided to cancel my post 3 separate times - LOL) but glad you enjoyed it despite the rambling length of it. 😀 Anyway, I can confirm for you that the MX64W is not an exception to the rule either... No Port option in its client view. And like the post from @cmr about the higher-end MX250, I can confirm that at least the MX84 and the MX100 both do not have it either. -- We even have the newer MX67C and MX68CW in a few places, and unfortunately neither of those support it either when I look at them. @ValleyITPC wrote: I think this one just needs to get some priority for it to get done. It's the kind of thing that should get done as a matter of embarrassment not having it, over new features. I do try to stay positive, but if I'm ever on the phone remotely with a client that says "can't you even see which is connected to what port?, now I have to pay you to drive or fly out here???", my first thought will be "damn you Meraki, c'mon for F sakes get your sh** together". Luckily that hasn't happened for me yet. HA!! @ValleyITPC, I think that's what they call a "flag"! -- So, good luck this weekend, 'cause I have a feeling you may need a little! 🤣
... View more
Perhaps ValleyITPC barely overstated it by claiming 100% of admins would agree... but I have quite a bit of trouble in believing that it is less than 99.99% who would agree. -- This is NOT a request for support of "old school" thinking. Are you sure you understand what people are asking for in this thread, for you to dismiss it that way? Because this is exactly the opposite, where knowing port information for a downstream device WITHOUT having to be physically present or go trace the cable, I would say (in agreement with ValleyITPC) is PRECISELY the more modern, cloud-based approach to things. Every admin who is doing much more work on a network than whatever it is that my hometown barber shop does for theirs, is going to need to figure out WHICH PORT a certain device is connected to at some point or another... E.g. So that they can make changes to that individual device's VLAN / DHCP scope perhaps... or else to determine if it is safe to limit bandwidth or apply a Group Policy on a port, based on which downstream devices connected to a "dumb switch" would be affected at once... Or perhaps to actually track down where some """helpful""" yahoo at the MX's site has installed the newest "dumb switch" on a downstream port without the admin's knowledge... Or any number of other issues, like a remote admin having an on-site technician (or untrained end-user, who would definitely trace a cable incorrectly even if their life somehow depended on it) to unplug the correct cable for them to then relocate that particular device to another port or remove it entirely. Not being able to see this VERY BASIC INFO that Meraki MX devices simply will not reveal for some truly unfathomable reason is what is frustrating to so many people like myself. -- I'm glad to hear that your network is so simple (or else, so flawlessly documented by every, single, solitary person making the slightest change, either physical or logical) that you apparently never have these sorts of problems... or maybe you simply don't mind wasting an hour driving (or heck, 8 hours flying) to a remote location to trace a cable down... However, the rest of us who live in what I would call the real world, run into them all the time, and have to go to excess and quite wasteful effort to resolve them, precisely because of this tragic flaw in the MX admin interface. There are, as you say, very many reasons to be happy with Meraki of course. Their rather inconsistent reporting of current VPN status is not one to be happy over, nor is the unpredictable delay before updates are applied (vs. ssh-ing into a Cisco switch for example), and several other such things... HOWEVER all of those are INDEED things that we (generally) accept as being shortcomings that are reasonable tradeoffs because it is cloud-based. -- But honestly and quite simply, this is not one of those "reasonable" ones... This issue (along with the complete inability to similarly put even a simple DESCRIPTION in an MX port's config) is the kind of glaring omission that should have been addressed in the beta or even alpha version of their software, much less this many years after their MX products have been on the market. Come on, Meraki, get on the ball already with this one!
... View more