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 Adriano
Adriano
Here to help
Member since Mar 26, 2018
08-18-2021
Community Record
18
Posts
6
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
12-28-2020
05:37 AM
Hey @Johan Basic things first. Remember the MX is not a switch and does not speak STP and does not support UDLD either. So what you are dealing with is one switch only which is your root bridge too. Both ends of a link need to support UDLD for this feature to initiate. Since the MX does not support it, enabling UDLD in your topology is useless Loop guard does not apply to your topology either. I'd not apply it. For your topology enabling RSTP without any STP guard options (root, loop, bpdu-obviously) is enough. doing to should give you one of your fibre links in forwarding and the other in blocking. A note on UDLD, as mentioned in your case is useless since the MX does not support it, in valid cases when UDLD is enabled, Meraki recommends to do it in "Alert Only" mode https://documentation.meraki.com/Architectures_and_Best_Practices/Cisco_Meraki_Best_Practice_Design/Best_Practice_Design_-_MS_Switching/General_MS_Best_Practices Finally, regarding the "correct" topology. I am afraid that what you have is correct because of your two uplinks to the same box (MX). if you disable one of the uplinks you should see a more comprehensible topology. with both enabled you should be able to see a check box "Show redundant links" which makes the topology a tiny bit more comprehensible.
... View more
12-24-2020
07:19 AM
enable RTSP on both uplinks to make sure one of the uplinks is in blocking state.
... View more
06-08-2020
02:35 AM
Yes, In essence setting statics with the option "while host responds" The host being in the far end of the link. then the fail over follows the default route priority. statics come before the non-meraki VPN peer, so if the route learnt statically is removed because the tracked host is not responding, then the routes injected by the non-meraki vpn peer should kick in.
... View more
06-05-2020
04:31 PM
Hey @PhilipDAth Thanks for your reply. Good to now the Auto VPN works. I am more after the non-Meraki VPN peer situation as shown in the pic. I guess if the auto VPN works, the non-Meraki VPN peer should establish and work with relative quality. Any experiences with non-Meraki VPN peer in this situation?
... View more
06-05-2020
03:48 PM
Hi @PhilipDAth Regarding your comment " The second option is build a non-meraki VPN between the MX hub in China and your MX hub in your own country." I am actually planning that approach and have some questions about it. I know that non-meraki VPN peers work and I am familiar with it. I am not sure if the peer would establish due to the "great firewall of China" and if it does what the quality would be between an MX in the china cloud (meraki.cn) and one MX on the global cloud Do you have any experience with it? Would the non-meraki VPN between the MX hub in China and the MX hub outside china (hong kong) establish? What is the quality, would it bounce constantly, packet loss? Thanks!
... View more
06-01-2020
05:42 AM
1 Kudo
this is a rather old thread. I hope you found a fix. The way to point a static route to the LAN devices: - Use a "transit" vlan between your MX and the LAN device (L3 switch) - Point the static to the L3 switch ip address on that "transit" vlan.
... View more
08-23-2019
11:19 AM
@Woosie have you actually used those VANTEV antennas and cables you are mentioning with a MX67C? Im curious to know if it really worked fine and solved your problem.
... View more
03-25-2019
09:22 AM
5 Kudos
Follow normal recommendations for STP. On out case, we are using MS devices as L2 only at the access layer.. Our core L3 devices are 4500 cisco. we use the follwing settings that work perfect. *Root guard: Configure at core on all ports to access switches and on access switches to APs *BPDU guard: Configure in all access ports *Loop guard: Configure in uplinks to core *UDLD enforce on uplinks to core
... View more
06-05-2018
08:55 AM
@Adam Yeah, returning the MX64W and getting the MX64, according to my Korean counterparts (site is in Korea) would take around 2 months. Yep I considered too making a new template to cover the mx64W case. I may not even use a template since the MX64W will be the only one in the organization. given the input from @Mr_IT_Guy, I'll try to use the mx64 template I already have. Cheers lads
... View more
06-05-2018
08:49 AM
Thanks @Mr_IT_Guy So then, if I bind the MX64W to the MX64 template, since the MX64 template has no wireless settings, the mx64W wireless will remain unconfigured. Correct?
... View more
06-05-2018
06:38 AM
I have templates for networks that use the MX64. Recently for a new site a MX64W was ordered by mistake. I am wondering if I would be able to associate the MX64W to a template made specifically for the MX64? Any experience with his situation?
... View more
04-18-2018
06:31 AM
MerakiDave Im based in Europe, Amsterdam, The Netherlands to be precise. Are you guys planning to host a Meraki Masters course in this area in the near future? I'd love to attend if so.
... View more
04-18-2018
06:30 AM
@MerakiDave Im based in Europe, Amsterdam, The Netherlands to be precise. Are you guys planning to host a Meraki Masters course in this area in the near future? I'd love to attend if so.
... View more
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 32024 | |
| 1 | 1440 |
