Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About Xavier_o
Community Record
13
Posts
0
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Aug 22 2024
2:28 AM
Hi, Sorry for a dumb question but I cannot find a clear answer to it. Could someone please explain what is a difference between MA-ANT-3-D6 and C6 Meraki antennas? AP - MR46E if that makes a difference. Looking at radiation pattern they look rather similar just one is "downtilt", meaning what ? 🙂 Am I right to assume that C6 has a "doughnut" center at its own body, while D6 has it pushed down from itself (vertical view I believe)? So in case of racks being 7-8 meters in height and antenna mounted at 10-11 meters D6 is much better option as will create less interference between AP? Thank you!
... View more
Sep 16 2022
5:06 AM
Good point here. I use MX84+VPN, so far, highest load I saw on MX was about 50% (peak)
... View more
Sep 16 2022
5:03 AM
Yep, that's why I thought of using all links at the same time rather than limit to one. Well it is what it is 🙂 Thanks!
... View more
Sep 16 2022
12:06 AM
That's a shame... So if I were to have stack of 7 switches (let's say), only one uplink would work while 6 ports were off.. not great.. Thanks.
... View more
Sep 15 2022
11:35 PM
Hi, I have 2 MX devices (warm spare) and 3 switch stack (MS, physically stacked with stack cable). Do I need to enable Link Aggregation on stack connected to MX (to aggregate 3 ports)? At the moment 1 ports from every switch is connected to 1 MX and same for a 2nd MX. On every MX 3 LAN ports are used for switches. STP is disconnecting 2 (as it should I believe), meaning only 1 port is active at given time. If I need, how to enable LACP on MX as I see no option to do so? And to my knowledge it should be done on both sides for link aggregation to work (maybe...? 🙂 ) Thank you
... View more
Jan 4 2022
11:26 AM
Hi, @KarstenI wrote: The ISP-routers have to be connected to the WAN-ports. If there are two routers and only one (virtual) IP on them, then they are meant to provide redundancy and not load-sharing. They would be via "switch" inside MX. Physical cable Port 5 - to same MX84 WAN1 port To connect both at the same time, you need a small switch that connects both routers and *one* WAN-port of both MXes. This is exactly why I don't want to have any extra hardware, small switches (extra point of failure), instead use MX, so it could act as a switch. You should not use the internal switch for this purpose. That is a really bad security practice (you would physically bypass your firewall) and the Meraki traffic-analysis wouldn't like it to see the same traffic twice. Why would it bypass firewall? It would be on separete zone with 3 access ports within vlan1000, from LAN (all vlans but vlan1000) and directly (cable) connected to WAN port. -------------- Simillar topic here: Solved: Separate VLAN for WAN link - The Meraki Community Just this time instead of using MS stack I would use MX itself. Question is can/will MX understand and separate ports 3,4,5 (all in VLAN 1000): from the rest of the router, like creating different zone? If it can why it cannot be used as a "stand alone" switch (build in into MX) --------------
... View more
Jan 4 2022
5:57 AM
Hi, 2 Meraki MX84 in HA mode. 2 ISP routers. 2nd ISP router gets the same IP if the first one fails so I cannot use WAN1 and WAN2 ports on MX For both MX84 - ports 3,4,5 (all in VLAN 1000): Port 3 - cable to ISP router 1 Port 4 - cable to ISP router 2 Port 5 - cable to same MX84 WAN1 port MX84 port 9 and 10 (trunk allowing all but not VLAN1000) to MS stack. Will it work? Can I use MX ports for this instead of MS for ISP HA? Do I need to tag WAN port (VLAN1000) for this? Pic for reference only: Thanks
... View more
Mar 8 2021
6:29 AM
Thanks Bruce, Note that if an MX-Z device is configured with a default route (0.0.0.0/0) to a Non-Meraki VPN peer, traffic will not fail over to the WAN, even if the connection goes down. My intention was that it will fail-over to another IPsec tunnel if the primary is down. But I realise that this won't work anyway as before being worried about 2nd default route I can't even get some traffic over 2nd IPsec tunnel. Seems like I can have only 1 non-Meraki IPsec working... I cannot have the next hope as a VPN tunnel interface...
... View more
Mar 7 2021
11:27 AM
Thanks, Phillip, that's really interesting but this is not exactly what I need if I am correct. If I have 4 local subnets, I need to send all the traffic (default route) to a branch ONE with a failover IP (in case the main IPsec tunnel falls) and at the same time, those 4 subnets need to access a couple of servers on brach TWO (over 3rd IPsec tunnel). So I would have 2 default routes to branch ONE with different priorities (for failover) and 3rd route just to access IP range on branch TWO. 3 tunnels and 3 static routes. Only our office is with MX appliance so this would be non-Meraki VPN tunnels. It cannot be done from what I was reading? Thanks.
... View more
Mar 6 2021
5:02 AM
Can I have 2 (or more) default routes on MX appliance to two (or more) non Meraki IPsec tunnels ?
... View more
Feb 8 2021
6:51 AM
From documentation, I understand that this is possible only for Meraki Auto VPN ? "Note: Flow preferences for VPN traffic only affect Meraki AutoVPN, not non-Meraki VPN Peers" https://documentation.meraki.com/MX/Firewall_and_Traffic_Shaping/MX_Load_Balancing_and_Flow_Preferences We using non-Meraki VPN, HUB. Thanks
... View more
Feb 8 2021
1:09 AM
A - current situation. B - trying to achieve. Is it possible to do this with MX appliance and 2 IPsec tunnels? No internet breakout.. If the destination is 10.X.X.X go to VPN 1 (HQ) If the destination is NOT 10.X.X.X go to VPN 2 Many thanks.
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
