I think I just found the answer to my own question.  It only uses the one IP on the LAN side.  Weird Meraki. ... View more

Hi,   I am trying to setup the scenario where I am tracking an IP in the MPLS network for a specific route reachable via that MPLS network.  That way I can be quite granular in what routes go via the MPLS network and which would failover to an IPSEC tunnel to the DC.  I'm doing this on the Meraki Live demo site with an MX100.   When I add the static route entry with 'while host responds to ping' for an IP in the MPLS network i get the error message...   "There were errors in saving this configuration: Host IP must be inside the static route's subnet." It seems I can only use an IP in the attached subnet for the next hop?  That doesn't seem to be of much use.   The LAN interface of the MPLS router will be up and responding to pings even when its WAN interfaces are down or blackholing traffic so my static route would never be removed from the routing table and the MX100 would never use the IPSEC path to the DC. The only scenario that would failover is if the MPLS router fails completly.  Its much more likely for the circuit to fail so I need to cover that eventuality somehow.   Any ideas or thoughts?   Thanks RTS   UPDATE - 5 mins after posting  -   I was misunderstanding the error message.  the host IP to ping must be in the destination subnet, not next hop subnet so it seems ok.  I'm guessing the logic is that if this IP in the destination subnet is not reachable via this next hop then don't use this static route which makes sense.  I wanted to use a transit subnet near to the destination but this works in any case.   Thanks if you read this far as I'm working through my design!  ... View more

@Bruce Thanks.  Your replies are really helpful and I appreciate your help.   I was thinking the static route for the transit subnets allows me to use the far end of the transit subnet as the track host for whether the static route(s) are up or not.  This allows me to be granular with different failures within the MPLS.  i.e. if only one leg goes down, I can remove the routes to that DC only.  It may be overkill really and too much effort/complex to manage but we'll see when I draw it out.   The MPLS provider is willing to give me a second interface on the router with a different transit subnet so the idea of plugging that into WAN 2 of the MX is a great idea. Finally, the confirmation that there is (albeit manual) recovery if there is no internet access is great.  It means we're not totally dead if the MX fails and I think I can get away with a manual process in that scenario.   Thanks for your help and watch this space for more queries as I flesh out the design and when I start building it!   Happy Holidays All! RTS ... View more

Thanks @Bruce .  Thats an interesting idea.  It does introduce a single point of failure and prevents us having the resilience from the IPSEC tunnel to the DCs and we were hoping to enhance resilience from this.   I'm thinking if I now put static routes for the DC destinations with tracking ("active while host responds to ping") on the MX via the MPLS router and make the tracking host the far end MPLS router peers for given DC subnets then the static route will stop being active if that MPLS leg fails (or the local MPLS leg or local MPLS router fails). I would need a permanent (non-tracked) static for the MPLS transit subnet(s).  In that failure scenario the traffic would then follow the route out of the IPSEC tunnel for those subnets.  Does that make sense?   In the above solution, the MX would be a single point of failure again but I could use the IPSEC tunnel.  The switch stack would need its default route via the MX interface.    The issue would be internet connectivity.  Could I do the same in reverse for the Internet connectivity from the MX and send it via the MPLS router if the Internet link on the MX fails?    What about if the whole MX fails?  I'm thinking I'm dead in the water?  I can't manually change the static routes on the switch stack without Internet connectivity to the switches can I?   I'm pretty new to Meraki so trying to understand this new world vs old world networking is a challenge and bringing them together seems more of a challenge!   Cheers RTS ... View more

Thanks @KarstenI .  I got the impression it wasn't 'proper' VRRP from the documentation but was hoping they wouldn't say VRRP if it wasn't the full standard.  Back to the drawing board I think. 🙂 ... View more