Hello RumorConsumer,   I think what you were missing was the Management VLAN setting.... Navigate to Switch -> Switch Settings, at the top you define the Management VLAN. All your APs and Switches will try to grab an address from this VLAN.     ... View more

In my scenrario I couldn't break 150mb on wifi when the AP itself could speedtest at 350+. Interestingly enough when I turned off meraki standard traffic shaping for the SSID I'm using as my test case, speeds doubled or came close to max for 2x2 streams. This includes testing at fast.com, speedtest.net and other major testing sites. Hopefully that helps others as part of their troubleshooting... ... View more

Fix the LLDP on the MX250/450 issue.  2 years left on advanced security on 24 MX250/450.  2 Years on an open case and no result.   Clock is ticking.  Gotta start looking for a new solution! ... View more

I don’t have the mx64 for the gig FiOS.  I’m running an MX250.   But the way I have it setup Is as follows.   ONT to MX250 via Internet port 2 (home connection)   On one of the lan ports I have assigned a VLAN 80 with DHCP enabled with the following range: 172.16.80.0/28 and have that port plugged into my WAN port of the FiOS router for the TV portion to work.   make sure you do not assign a 192.168.1.0/24 as it will conflict with the FiOS router internal network.  And then you can configure the VPN using the dynamic DNS name of the meraki.     ... View more

indeed, but I am looking for a new supplier who offers this solution ... View more

It might work if you create a group policy and attach it to that client.    That’s when the layer 7 will kick in.  Since group policies are stateless. ... View more

So, it turns out this wasn't an issue with the MX, but rather an error in each extension within Free PBX:   it seems that for the non-working extensions the “dial” is only the digit 1 instead of the full extension, committing the second and third integer…ext 103 and 112 work and are proper.   In correcting this, all is well   [root@freepbx ~]# asterisk -rx ‘database show DEVICE/100’ /DEVICE/100/default_user : 100 /DEVICE/100/dial : PJSIP/1 /DEVICE/100/tech : pjsip /DEVICE/100/type : fixed /DEVICE/100/user : 100 5 results found. [root@freepbx ~]# asterisk -rx ‘database show DEVICE/103’ /DEVICE/103/default_user : 103 /DEVICE/103/dial : PJSIP/103 /DEVICE/103/tech : pjsip /DEVICE/103/type : fixed /DEVICE/103/user : 103 5 results found. [root@freepbx ~]# asterisk -rx ‘database show DEVICE/102’ /DEVICE/102/default_user : 102 /DEVICE/102/dial : PJSIP/1 /DEVICE/102/tech : pjsip /DEVICE/102/type : fixed /DEVICE/102/user : 102 5 results found. [root@freepbx ~]# asterisk -rx ‘database show DEVICE/112’ /DEVICE/112/default_user : 112 /DEVICE/112/dial : PJSIP/112 /DEVICE/112/tech : pjsip /DEVICE/112/type : fixed /DEVICE/112/user : 112 Thanks again for all of your help! ... View more

I performed what was indicated by @KarstenI on the MX I rolled back to 16.7 and it worked in terms of creating a valid certificate again.    I forwarded this thread to the guy I was speaking with on the ticket, but I haven't heard anything back yet, but at least the error is gone.  ... View more

I'm with you there.  We had a new location stand up with full Meraki.  (32 MS390 switches, an MS425 Agg switch, an MX250 soon to be 2, 33 MR56 APs).  It was kind of a test for us to see if we could replace most of our Cisco with Meraki.  We just worked through a QoS/SMB file transfer issue that would determine if we go full Meraki throughout.  That test was successful, only because the Meraki support keeps us up to date, and is more than willing to work with us at any point.  So even if the product isn't 100% ready for prime time (which I do believe we are currently in that situation), I can still justify moving forward with them due to the support that we have received, and continue to receive.   I'm fairly excited for what the future holds for Meraki, especially with the new addition of the sensors and cameras.  Just have faith, Meraki will take care of you. ... View more

Apparently the CDP/LLDP issue with the MX250 and MX450 to them is a cosmetic issue and doesn’t have any real world impact, and won’t be worked on,  that’s just a great answer for a solution I spent a good amount of money.  Never again will I recommend a Meraki solution to a customer. ... View more

By any chance do you have bonjour forwarding on both access point and Mx, if yes remove it from the access point.   I had the same issue. ... View more

When you create the 1:1 NAT and allow traffic inbound via that NAT you are effectively creating an inbound Layer 3 firewall rule (although you never normally see it). Since the Layer 3 firewall rules on the MX are stateful this will allow the returning traffic back out. However, the Layer 7 rule are stateless.   So even if the outbound traffic is returning to a remote host due to the stateful operation of the Layer 3 firewall, it will still be blocked if it matches a Layer 7 firewall since these are stateless. (This can work in your favour in some instances, and in others it creates a headache). ... View more

https://documentation.meraki.com/MR/WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/Wireless_Throughput_Calculations_and_Limitations  ... View more