Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Register or Sign in
Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About KiloBravo
KiloBravo
Here to help
Member since Mar 22, 2018
Dec 18 2023
Community Record
16
Posts
0
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Nov 23 2023
1:45 AM
when's the last time you you used the MX-MX link? wondering if maybe those issues you encoutered could have been ironed out by now....
... View more
Nov 23 2023
1:43 AM
Thanks. With it not being an official recommendation, I guess that means getting support on it might be problem should I run into weird issues that aren't due to misconfiguration?
... View more
Nov 21 2023
1:21 AM
Thanks Phil. Would you say those failures are just due to it being misconfigured?
... View more
Nov 21 2023
1:18 AM
Thanks Ryan. If properly configured, I'm trying to figure out what the cons could be?
... View more
Nov 20 2023
11:51 AM
Firstly, apologies for the the not so great diagram, just slapped it together. Hope it still makes sense. So I've come across a slightly different setup and would like suggestions on how to improve it. The objective is for MPLS or internet bound traffic to flow if either of the core switches fail. My thoughts on it are that the MX's could end up in dual master if any one of them (the core switches) fails as there won't be able to send/receive VRRP heartbeats. If that's correct then the only solution I can think of is to use a dedicated link between the two MX's as per the direct-attached setup here: MX Design: Warm Spare - Smartencyclopedia. Meraki do not seem to document that design anywhere though. Thoughts? (For clarity the MX is the default gateway for all internal subnets. Isolated/dedicated vlans on the core switches are being used to connect up into the routers)
... View more
May 12 2023
8:52 AM
Overthinking and me tend to come as a package 😄. But no, honestly, it's just to make sure I've not missed anything obvious. my time dpeloying meraki solutions is intermittent and it's been a while so I don't want to get caught out because I'd forgotten something I once knew. Always feel a little sketchy when it's been a while and I've been bitten before by the cloud-managed only thing in the past .
... View more
May 12 2023
8:20 AM
Thanks for the clear steps Ryan. I guess using this method there's no need to locally/manually configure anything on the boxes before slotting them in either?
... View more
May 12 2023
6:17 AM
probably should've added this to the OP but... I've also got approximately 100 APs and around 15 switches in the same network...
... View more
May 12 2023
6:02 AM
I have a pair of MX105 appliances configured as Primary and warm-spare in my network. I need to swap them both out for exactly the same models. I've read the MX cold swap article but that is assuming that there is only one appliance in the network already that needs replacing, which isn't the case. Would like the communitys ideas on what the best procedure would be for this? I need to maintain the same config, it's literally just a hardware swap-out. thanks in advance
... View more
Mar 22 2023
6:49 AM
Thankyou Brash. That adds up as one of them I've just recently added some switches and APs to. This is what happens when you step away from deployments for a while! knew it would be something simple 🙂 Thanks Again.
... View more
Mar 21 2023
11:19 AM
Hi, I've created two new networks under the same organization, one of them has: 'Network-wide' 'Security and SD WAN' 'Switching' 'Wireless' 'Insight' 'Organization' the newer one has the same as above but also: Camera Cellular Gateway I'm almost certain I created them both exactly the same way, no template, no cloning, just created a new 'combined' one and gave it a name. Any idea why they've come out different? and more importantly, is there any way i can remove the menus i don't need? in this case the cellular gateway/Camera? Thanks
... View more
Jun 27 2019
6:25 PM
Thanks for confirming. Looks like I'll be using the 2x40G for up-links and 2x10G for flexible stacking then.
... View more
Jun 27 2019
2:28 AM
Hi, I have two MS425 switches that I'd like to stack; these switches will be used for servers and connect directly to the core (a pair of stacked MS450 switches). The MS425 have 2 x 40G QSFP+ interfaces for stacking *or* uplinking, no dedicated stacking ports at the rear (according to documentation) and 32 x 10G SFP+ fiber. This gives me two options: Stack the switches using the 40G stack/uplink ports. Then use multiple 10G interfaces, aggregated and connected up to the core, can go up to 8 interfaces if I've read correctly. LAG the 2 x 40G interfaces and connect up to the core, giving me 80G uplinks. Then Use the 10G interfaces to stack the switches. My question is, with option 2, am I limited to 2 x 10G interfaces to stack with? or can i aggregate multiple interfaces on each switch and then use the aggregate's as stack links? Thanks in advance.
... View more
Thanks for the quick reply Phil 🙂 "and being native, is not tagged" That's interesting to me. Fundamentally i guess the above is the source of my confusion as my understanding is/was that in networking the 'Native vlan' does not equal 'untagged', but instead it means 'tagged with whatever the native vlan is on that switch' which is, as you said, typically vlan 1....
... View more
Mar 22 2018
2:13 AM
Hi, Looking just to clarify something I'm a little puzzled over. in the advances MS setup guide it states that the following item is one of the 'out of the box' behaviours for MS switches: "All interfaces will send management traffic on VLAN1 (untagged)" Does this mean that the packets are default 'tagged' with vlan ID 1, or that the packets aren't tagged at all? It looks contradictory to me to say that the packets are sent on 'vlan1' and 'untagged' as I understand vlan1 to be a tag as all the others are, with the exception that vlan 1 is typically the native vlan that all switch ports use and so by default are tagged with that ID. Perhaps the statement is presuming that vlan 1 is the native vlan to which the connecting ports will uplinked to? Please feel free to tell me where I've gone 🙂 Thanks in advance
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
