@DHAnderson wrote: Unfortunately, it sounds like the issue is the design of the MX that is the complicating factor.    The good news is that in the April Quarterly, they did not directly answer a question about IPV6, but they did say that they are working on it. @DHAnderson That is certainly nothing new! It's the same statement Meraki have made during the last umpteen Quarterly's. Meraki's senior management acknowledge they have done a poor job communicating to the community about IPv6 yet do nothing to resolve it.    @Daghan  promised a roadmap months ago yet nothing, just more of the same silence. ... View more

Great posts! Any idea what Avalara Product Code Meraki licenses would be then? I've gone with  SM020400 - Mandatory maintenance agreements related to the sale of tangible personal property. ... View more

@ScubaSteve wrote: Oh but don't worry.... they are focused on putting things like WAN health which should be a part of the native license into Meraki Insight. What the heck is going on Meraki!     Honestly, I cannot fight for you guys anymore. We have really sucky reporting features. Sure I can see an overview but I can't choose between date and times. No IPv6 capabilities. All of Meraki Insight which shouldn't be a separate nickel and dime package, Poor log keeping (Why can't we save these logs, reports etc on the internal drives with the ones that have them?). No native Meraki VPN Client, No ikev2, the password on the VPN is unencrypted. My gosh. Even the firmware updates are dismal. In order to use anything useful they force you on the Betas.   It just frustrates me after spending 30k + that this is what we get. Don't get me wrong.. the idea behind it is awesome. I see the potential. But its so hard to sit back and watch it take the wrong directions all the freaking time.   I am starting to think Meraki needs some serious restructuring done. This is not the way to run a company that touts itself as enterprise ready. @ScubaSteve the man you want to say this to is @tnight, he's the guy at the top of the Meraki org. chart. @Daghan is on the MX team that commited to regular updates but none provided since popping up his head. I completely agree the Insight functionality SHOULD be part of the MX Enterprise License or MX Advanced Security License at minimum if they are looking for incremental revenue on the product and should not be a nickle and dime add-on as you say. At this point I'm not sure why Meraki even has this community when all they are willing to comment on is the light and fluffy stuff but not post anything in the way of value re IPv6 and when they do comment its with lip service and non-answers for the most part. I just don't get how according to @Daghan in his one and only response they were 3 to 6 months from having a road map 3 months ago, is that his way of saying they hadn't started on a road map yet for a standard that has long been ratified and actively being deployed in the wild by vendors (Meraki excluded of course)? ... View more

@Daghan wrote: I run part of Meraki Product Management that includes MX.   We agree (PM / Eng teams) with everyone on this list that we need IPv6 and we need it yesterday!    There is nothing sinister about the delay. It isn't a hardware limitation, nor a Cisco ploy to drive a wedge between Meraki and Enterprise Networking products. In fact, we have engineers working on IPv6 right now and we are in the process of formulating an accurate roadmap. I believe we are within 3-6 months window for being able to articulate what IPv6 features will be available when.    What is taking us this long?   When I launched MX with 2 engineers 8 years ago, we were the little engine that could. One strategy we adopted was to "fit the use-case", not to build generic features. Well, in some instances, we overfitted some of those use-cases that created technical debt. We had no clue that we had to worry about it. If someone came to me in 2011 and said you'll sell 1M MX in the next 8 years, I would have asked which psychedelic drug there were on.   But it happened!  We are energetically trying to redo some of our earlier decisions (network objects, n uplinks, no-nat, full support for BGP...are some highlights from our infinitely long to-do list).   None of the above is an excuse, but I wanted to shine the light of transparency on our thought process.    To remain a strong (we are in fact 14K customers strong) SD-WAN provider, we have to put IPv6 behind us... and we will.   Thanks, Daghan. @Daghan @tnight Update please, you promised timely updates yet there have been none. Again, none of this IPV6 stuff should come as a surprise to Meraki, therefore, why isn't Meraki with the resources of Cisco behind them further along than this? If at this point you still don't have a roadmap someone quite simply isn't doing their job. Meraki is a premium product not keeping pace with vendors at a fraction of the cost on the IPV6 front. ... View more

@cmw wrote: Man, I'm feeling pretty silly right now.  I have supported v4-only client networks with Meraki gear and thought so highly of it that I ordered one for my office.  It arrived this afternoon, I plugged it in, got to setting up and then couldn't find the v6 config options.  I thought I was just missing them somehow.  And then I found my way here.  And now I'm sad.   It's very much my own fault for making an assumption.  I sheepishly admit that.  I assumed that something I consider fundamental (IPv6 support) to a piece of networking gear like this (MX68W) was just a given. So much so I didn't double check.  I'm a little blown away over it.  I checked my calendar.  Yup, 2018.  It's not 2005.   I think the Meraki product line is awesome and I was so excited to have it in my own network but this is a deal-breaker for me.  I'm really not happy about it but this will have to go back in the box and sent away.   Seriously bummed...   cmw @cmw RMA the hardware and licences, you have 30 days to do so. ... View more

Meraki Team,   Are you hearing any of this? Comments and updates please, acknowledging comments and keeping the community updated on this stuff is not rocket science.   Again, why are we 3 to 6 months out from a roadmap still? None of this makes sense considering IPv6 specifications have been out for so long. ... View more

@Daghan wrote: I run part of Meraki Product Management that includes MX.   We agree (PM / Eng teams) with everyone on this list that we need IPv6 and we need it yesterday!    There is nothing sinister about the delay. It isn't a hardware limitation, nor a Cisco ploy to drive a wedge between Meraki and Enterprise Networking products. In fact, we have engineers working on IPv6 right now and we are in the process of formulating an accurate roadmap. I believe we are within 3-6 months window for being able to articulate what IPv6 features will be available when.    What is taking us this long?   When I launched MX with 2 engineers 8 years ago, we were the little engine that could. One strategy we adopted was to "fit the use-case", not to build generic features. Well, in some instances, we overfitted some of those use-cases that created technical debt. We had no clue that we had to worry about it. If someone came to me in 2011 and said you'll sell 1M MX in the next 8 years, I would have asked which psychedelic drug there were on.   But it happened!  We are energetically trying to redo some of our earlier decisions (network objects, n uplinks, no-nat, full support for BGP...are some highlights from our infinitely long to-do list).   None of the above is an excuse, but I wanted to shine the light of transparency on our thought process.    To remain a strong (we are in fact 14K customers strong) SD-WAN provider, we have to put IPv6 behind us... and we will.   Thanks, Daghan. @Daghan  Thank you for this. I would have hoped that having seen this thread you would have been a little more concrete than this. Despite being a step in the right direction this response too comes across as more of the same non-answer answers to a certain degree and I find 3-6 months to have a roadmap you can communicate more than concerning. Again, IPv6 has been ratified for some time, should you not already be well ahead of this by this time? If not, then Meraki has failed horribly at delivering on the critical support of a STANDARD not a nice to have FEATURE everyone at Meraki seems to treat IPv6 as.   We are well past these sorts of vague and long past due responses. Please make this right and provide concrete details and timelines you surely have by now, how could you not?     ... View more

Not my intent to be disrespectful in suggesting this but this requires drastic measures at this point. Perhaps it's time to Contact Todd Nightingale is SVP, General Manager at Cisco Meraki since everyone below him in the Meraki organization has  ignored our cries for transparency on IPv6 or provided useless responses on the matter.   He has a profile on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/todd-nightingale-a106b510/ He is also on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/tnight?lang=en   Why introduce the new MX products supporting LTE when some carriers and ISP are only supporting IPv6 this late in the game? Meraki needs to focus their resources on fixing this IPv6 predicament NOT releasing new products.     ... View more

@RickJames wrote: Well this thread makes me want to just cry. I just spent crazy amounts of money on this stuff only to learn ipv6 over vpn doesn't work so now i have a 10 thousand dollar utm that can't even provide a vpn? What the ...   Seriously meraki fix this like yesterday please. I can't even begin to explain my amazement by this whole situation. I feel like a complete moron for buying this thing. The AP's work fine but this is completely unacceptable for a device in this price range. I need to be able to provide a vpn through my utm. All I can say is i am not spending another penny on a meraki product until i see this resolved.   If you purchased it less than 30 days ago request an RMA but be sure to tell them why you are doing so. ... View more

@Matt-Ignite wrote: These look really good!   As someone who's had no end of trouble trying to get a USB modem working with the MX64 devices (and ended up giving up because it just won't work here), having an integrated LTE modem is a real benefit.    The downside is obviously the cost - the MX67C is twice the price of the MX64 by the looks of things. I'd pay a bit more for integrated LTE, but an extra $1000 is a tough sell to a customer when a USB dongle is only $50.   On the official Documentation page for the new devices (https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/MX_Overviews_and_Specifications/MX67_and_MX68_Overview_and_Specifications), there's mention of being able to set a custom APN via the dashboard UI. I don't support there's any chance of getting this added to the MX64 devices as well? That would be a huge help when dealing with 4G failover.   Cheers, Matt The MX67C in addition to having integrated LTE also has 2x firewall throughput so additional cost is reasonably justified. If still too steep for you/your customer have you tried the Inseego Skyus LTE device? It is "Meraki Certified" and the only device we deploy now because they have been rock solid for our clients that have purchased them. ... View more

IPv6 needed ... View more

@Austin wrote: We're a startup, setting up our corporate and service network and I need to expose some servers for public access. We have restricted IPv4 space from ISP, so I decide to learn about IPv6. Become IPv6 master (okay, not quite, but much more educated now). I decide IPv6 is the right answer for many challenges we're facing, so I log into my Meraki dashboard to implement IPv6 on MX, MS, and MR. Don't see any options in the menus; decide to find instructions online. Find this thread instead.    Next step: change our network infrastructure? @Austin if you are looking for a response from Cisco Meraki on this don’t hold your breath. All they do is respond with canned non-answer responses and direct you to your Meraki rep. who  I followed up with but they only give the same useless response those Meraki staff in the community give. Both Meraki senior management and Cisco senior management all have public social media accounts (Twitter). It may be time to be reaching out to them directly. My account rep ageeed that might be a good approach since their hands are tied. The current situation is unacceptable.     ... View more

@Bovie2K wrote: I'm most excited about the speed increase but as other posters have noted many home users are able to get Gigabit Internet now at home and while much better than before 450 is still lacking. I'd like to push for a 450 guaranteed but not software cap'ed allowing the firewall to burst to whatever its CPU could sustain. No one is expecting an MX67 to power a 200 person company but to allow a full gigabit would be wonderful. Similar to my MX64 where Meraki advertises 200 megabit on threat defense but I have no problem hitting the 250 megabit software cap.   I'd also like to add on we are really hoping for software updates to support  IKE v2 VPN , SSL VPN and AnyConnect , and IPv6.   Still with that being said really happy for the speed increase.   Agreed! Maybe Meraki needs to consider enforcing device counts but develop hardware with more horsepower to accommodate a Small, Medium, Large & Extra Large license throughput model OR do what many vendors are doing at a lower price point simply support a bigger 1Gbps pipe. Access to 1Gbps service in metro areas like Toronto is becoming the norm not the exception. ... View more

@JasonCampbell We are also an MSP (https://cohort.net) in the Toronto, Canada market and also operate an online Meraki Store (https://cohort.ca) servicing Canada and will be launching sister sites in the USA and EU in short order. We got tired of dealing with VoIP providers that are sketchy at best (even the best of them are garbage) and landed on Cisco Spark which as you know transitioned into WebEx Teams. Being a Microsoft Partner we took a long hard look at Microsoft SfB/Teams with their PBX calling add-ons enabled but landed on WebEx Teams with calling service because at the time calling service on SfB/Teams was not available in Canada. Also being longtime members of the Apple Consultants Network (ACN) we liked the performance and the tight integration of Cisco WebEx Teams with Apple iOS and the Teams iOS App as a result of the Cisco Apple partnership. We have been on it for over a year and are having great success deploying it (currently working on a 100 seat deployment). While each platform has its pros and cons Cisco's QoS can't be beat as a result of their global networks supporting the WebEx Teams/Meetings service. WebEx Teams is Unified Communications (UC) done right in my books. ... View more

@JasonCampbell wrote: That's pretty sweet, for some reason i thought it was completely collaboration tech/softphone only at most. Please excuse me, but when you say Call Manager compatible, does that mean it fully integrates with CUCM? It allows for hybrid call services. This probably addresses your question(s): https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/cloudCollaboration/spark/hybridservices/callservices/cmgt_b_ciscospark-hybrid-call-service-config-guide.html     ... View more

@JasonCampbell wrote: Wow, surprised I never saw this. Looks good at face-value, I'll have to check out. It's a premium product but worth the investment. ... View more

@JasonCampbell wrote: Webex Teams has a hardphone offering? They absolutely have deskphone (hardphone) offerings. A large number of them in fact that are also Cisco Call Manager compatible so a great solution for companies wanting to migrate from CM to a cloud managed/hybrid solution.  ... View more

Since you asked @davidvan, I'm most excited that Meraki MX may someday support IPv6 but won't hold my breath. Competing products at a fraction of the cost already support it but Meraki can't even be bothered to update their partner community in any useful way. New devices are useless when they don't support a ratified standard like IPv6 that ISP/Carriers are moving full steam ahead with. ... View more

I ended up abandoning the thought of deploying Meraki MC and instead landed on Cisco Webex Teams (formerly Spark) and am very glad I did. Have been using WebEx Teams internally for a year now and deploying it to a number of customers now. As a Cisco Partner can't beat the NFR offering for internal usage and demo. ... View more

I ended up abandoning the thought of deploying Meraki MC and instead landed on Cisco Webex Teams (formerly Spark) and am glad I did. Have been using it internally for a year now and deploying it to a number of customers now. As a Cisco Partner can't beat the NFR offering for internal usage and demo. ... View more

@Bovie2K wrote: Its not just that they don't have IPv6 its the total radio silence. Not even a we are working on it and expect it by Q whatever 18 or 19. Even if they added it as supportable but still needed IPv4 in the short term to phone home that would be preferable to no IPv6 support period.   I would also echo the other comments in this thread that Meraki employees quit calling it a feature. When everyone else supports its no longer a feature its a basic requirement. @CarolineS What makes Meraki's radio silence on IPv6 even worse is that they would reference this thread as one that I assume Meraki is taking flack on in the community birthday announcement sent out yesterday yet continue to stand on their non-answer answers. It screams "we hear you but don't really care" and demonstrates how tone deaf Meraki is on this issue. It's shameful and borders on irresponsible!   We ask again... When is Cisco Meraki rolling out support of IPv6 on the MX and the rest of the Meraki network stack in beta and when is Meraki hoping to have it into stable release? "We continue to chip away at IPv6" during Meraki's quarterly update webcasts is not a suitable response to an important question. ... View more

@PhilipDAth I don't believe so according to documentation I have at my disposal but would be a question better directed to Inseego. ... View more

I know you said you are moving away from USB connected devices but... Checkout the Inseego (Formerly Feeney Wireless) Skyus DS. They have broad US, Canada and International carrier support. It is the only LTE failover we (https://cohort.ca) deploy and they are Meraki Certified.  They have been rock solid and we have sold a bunch of them here in Canada and everyone loves them. There are also many antenna options that you may consider.   More Info. Here: https://www.inseego.com/product/skyus-ds/ ... View more

@davidvan I know you are likely still feeling a bit of a sting from the replies to your last response re IPv6 on this post (sorry for that) but you still have a "community" looking for Meraki's guidance re the IPv6 standard which was fully ratified LAST YEAR and that Cisco Meraki still does not support. Therefore, we ask again and request a more appropriate and productive response than we received last time to the simple question: When is Cisco Meraki rolling out support of IPv6 on the MX and the rest of the Meraki network stack in beta and when is Meraki hoping to have it into stable release?   If Meraki isn't going to provide honest and transparent answers to the questions people have on the matter why even bother with this community? Again, IPv6 isn't a competitive advantage Meraki needs to hide from the world while in development, it's a requirement that both partners and customers need to be kept informed on.     ... View more

Shared passwords are not best practice in that you would not know who did what to your and/or your client network(s) from an audit perspective and they would certainly get you a failing grade on PCI/HIPPA compliance audit.   Shared passwords would not be something I would permit let alone advertise I do as an MSP with my company's and my client's security interests at heart. Doing things the right way (creating/managing individual user accounts) takes an investment in time, resources, processes, tools, etc. vs. the easy way (shared accounts). That said, we are part way into a move to SAML as others have suggested.   Food for thought... If an MSP is taking shortcuts like shared passwords due to resourcing maybe they need to look at how much they are charging and resource accordingly. I'd much rather have the conversation with a client that I have to raise rates than one where I have to explain why we are using shared accounts when/if something goes wrong on their network.     ... View more