About AjitKumar

AjitKumar

Hi @Andy66 I am not sure if would like the solution but seems like disabling Javascript is the only way as of now. https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/4928129?hl=en https://support.google.com/websearch/thread/28301966?hl=en Native Features on the Firewall may not help. May be Cisco Umbrella can be some rescue here - We need to explore this.

AjitKumar

Hi @imovaffagh This is my understanding. 1. In one Organization all the firewall (MXes) should have of one license type. [Enterprise / Adv / SDWAN] 2. We need to have separate set of license for every Organization. 3. We can always have Site-to-Site VPN between two Organizations - but this will be a 3rd Party VPN configuration. AutoVPN will not be possible. I also understand we need public Static IPs at both the ends for this configuration.

AjitKumar

Hi @Boyan1 I understand the upgrade will impact the complete network and devices. One idea could be to create a new network and apply the licenses and Invite your selected devices to this network.

AjitKumar

Hi @Thygesen Just to confirm if this is firmware issue - Is it possible for you to roll-back and observe the network - (If you have already not done this?)

AjitKumar

Hi @thirty2 I can think of 2 ideas. 1. You may expose the server on Internet on port 514. There after integrate the dashboard as per the syslog configuration (NOT RECOMMENDED) 2. You may establish VPN between your office and AWS. There after integrate the dashboard as per the syslog configuration Having said in all my deployment I have used onsite servers - which are locally present - I do not see a great advantage on uploading all the traffic on AWS. (This is my personal opinion)

AjitKumar

AjitKumar

Hi @Brill MX 84 is a solid BOX. However for Mining Area - I guess we shall look towards Industrial Wireless Units. https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/products/wireless/outdoor-wireless/index.html I am not sure how suitable Meraki could be for such an environment? I have not deployed - May be we shall seek feedback from a member who has already installed Meraki in such conditions.

AjitKumar · ‎10-23-2020

Hi @SchoolITMan As everyone is suggesting "interference" could be the primary reason. Also seems like we have a new Firmware release - MR 27.5.1. You may give it a shot - if already not upgraded. https://community.meraki.com/t5/Wireless-LAN/New-MR-27-5-1-firmware/m-p/101264

AjitKumar · ‎10-23-2020

Hi @johnnyngena What are your thoughts on "syslog" service. https://documentation.meraki.com/zGeneral_Administration/Monitoring_and_Reporting/Syslog_Server_Overview_and_Configuration

AjitKumar · ‎10-22-2020

Hola @CCL_CO Si te entiendo correctamente. Esto no debería ser un desafío. 1. Su punto de acceso debe estar conectado a un puerto troncal. 2. Se permitirá la "VLAN" deseada en el puerto troncal. 3. Etiquete el SSID con la "VLAN" deseada. Eche un vistazo a la captura de pantalla como referencia.

AjitKumar · ‎10-22-2020

Hi @Thomas2 A few Ideas here. 1. How about try connecting another Laptop? 2. How about connecting the Laptop on other Port 4 / 5?

AjitKumar · ‎09-22-2020

Hi Friends, Is the following configuration possible on MX100 (IPSec) The Customer is going to connect to their client's network (The client's network might have ASA / Fortigate). Question 1 From Branch-1 to Client-1 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv1) on Primary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-1 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv1) on Secondary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-2 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv1) on Primary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-2 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv1) on Secondary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-3 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv2) on Primary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-3 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv2) on Secondary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-4 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv2) on Primary ISP From Branch-1 to Client-4 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv2) on Secondary ISP Question 2 Also please confirm NAT (Network Address Translation) is possible over Site-to-Site VPN Phase2 as interesting traffic? Question 3 SSL based remote access VPN is possible? If yes, please confirm the SSL VPN traffic can be rerouted to existing Site-to-Site VPN of Branch-1 clients Example: End User-1 connect branch-1 SSL VPN and access Client-1 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv1) End User-2 connect branch-1 SSL VPN and access Client-3 Site-to-Site VPN (IKEv2) Regards Ajit

AjitKumar · ‎09-13-2020

Hi @LeonJVR Welcome to the community. You may post your queries right here. Regarding VPN configuration I believe it will work the way you are expecting. (I have never configured though) Hope you have read the following thread. https://documentation.meraki.com/SM/Profiles_and_Settings/Systems_Manager_VPN_Configurations_and_Sentry_VPN

AjitKumar · ‎09-01-2020

Hi Vishal, I do not see any change in the way users have been accessing the internal server. The sessions created to access internal servers will go via the same path .i.e WAN1 with the available bandwidth of 50 Mbps.

AjitKumar · ‎08-27-2020

Hi Asif I believe this will be difficult. I shall recommend reaching support right away.

AjitKumar · ‎08-26-2020

Welcome, Kovac. Meraki is a great solution and for sure you will enjoy working on it.

AjitKumar · ‎08-26-2020

Hi @Shadius 1. Hope MR33 is live. 2. Could you please find out why your laptop is not able to access the internet when you connect the uplink cable of Switch into the Laptop? Hope your laptop receives IP Address and DNS settings from the MX68 DHCP?

AjitKumar · ‎08-26-2020

Hi @Shadius 1. Hope your MX68 is Live on the Meraki Dashboard. 2. By default, MS120 will search for the internet on VLAN1. If this a new setup. You may start with default configuration on MX68 and MS120. They should work seamlessly. Once the devices are live you may update the configuration as needed. Else you may need to login to the switch Manually and configure the appropriate IP and VLAN settings from the Local Status page for the switch to reach the cloud. Hope the following is your network connectivity.

AjitKumar · ‎08-26-2020

Hi Warren, I believe 1:1 NAT should do the trick. Not sure though. https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/NAT_and_Port_Forwarding/Configuring_1%3A1_NAT

AjitKumar · ‎08-26-2020

Hi @Shadius Your connectivity seems to be fine. Orange LED means the MS120 is not able to reach Meraki Cloud. Could you please connect the same cable to your laptop and check if you can access the internet? Also, make sure there are no rules on the MX68 to block the reachability to Meraki Cloud. (Hope the MX68 Port Allows All VLANS)

AjitKumar · ‎07-30-2020

Hey Thank you for updating us. I have been waiting for this feature for quite a long time. Regards Ajit

AjitKumar · ‎07-29-2020

Hi Austin, I do not see any challenges with this connectivity. This should work unless there is an issue with fiber/module. As you know the Meraki devices will appear dormant on the dashboard until they start communicating with the Meraki Cloud. I understand we shall look towards resolving this. A few ideas could be? 1. Check the Uplink port configuration/status on MS120-24. 2. Maybe you can try to connect the MS120-8 directly to one of the copper ports on MS120-24 port to see if the device is able to communicate with the cloud.

AjitKumar · ‎07-29-2020

Hi Darren, I never got an opportunity to configure MS390 yet. However documentation suggests, this is a management port to access the switch "Local Status Page". This does not seem to help the device reach the cloud. Kindly refer to the below URLs if already not. https://documentation.meraki.com/MS/Installation_Guides/MS390_Series_Installation_Guide https://documentation.meraki.com/zGeneral_Administration/Tools_and_Troubleshooting/Using_the_Cisco_Meraki_Device_Local_Status_Page

AjitKumar · ‎07-29-2020

Hi Yoshi, I understand the status remains same as of today. Atleast I am not aware of any method to achieve this.

AjitKumar · ‎07-24-2020

Hi @chengineer Seems like the eurl is broken. Would you mind rechecking the same?

AjitKumar

Community Record

Badges