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 JamesMutie
JamesMutie
Getting noticed
Member since Mar 25, 2021
May 13 2022
Community Record
36
Posts
2
Kudos
1
Solution
Badges
May 13 2022
2:41 AM
Hello Team, any one who has faced the below issue. IP phones currently (Cisco 7940 and 7960) cannot receive POE if connected to the meraki devices MS355-48X Only two models 7970 and 7911 are able to receive power The 7940 and 7960 IP phones can power when connected to Catalyst PoE switch.
... View more
Mar 18 2022
4:53 AM
@KarstenI Thanks. Any list of compatible 3G or LTE devices ?
... View more
Mar 18 2022
2:41 AM
@DarrenOC @CptnCrnch When I login on the local page. The port section does show up for me to change role. Any extra thing I need to do?. below is the local page.
... View more
Mar 18 2022
1:58 AM
Hello Experts, I would like to convert a Z3 port 4 to be an internet port for my secondary Link. Is this feature available on Z3 or it is only available on Z3C ?
... View more
Dec 2 2021
2:20 AM
@KarstenI Thanks, what happens if we stack them and the grace period for the unlicensed switches expires?
... View more
Dec 2 2021
12:46 AM
Hello community, I found this in Meraki documentation. Do I need duplicate licenses to cover my security appliance in a warm spare configuration? No, if two security appliances are in a warm spare/HA configuration, licensing is only required for one of the two devices. The only additional cost of a warm spare configuration is the redundant hardware. Switches in warm spare/HA will require two individual licenses. I would like to know what will be the Impact of physically stacking the two MS425-16 switches when one of them is not licensed in an organization using per device Licensing model? Will the stack configuration option be available? If the stack configuration is available and I configure the stack, what will happen if I the grace period of the not-licensed stack member ends. Will the whole stack stop working after the one switch grace period?
... View more
Oct 31 2021
4:58 AM
On the same , the option for NAT translation , is it available in NAT mode Concentrator?
... View more
Oct 31 2021
4:44 AM
Hello Community, Is it possible to configure concentrator priority for an MX in NAT mode concentrator in AutoVPN domain.
... View more
Oct 31 2021
1:42 AM
@ww 1) meraki does not allow to have same subnets "in vpn" on spokes at 1 organization. This means that when I try to enable vpn mode at the spoke it will automatically refuse sees the spoke is learning the same subnet from the hub ? How about if I make the route more specific ? than the advertised route ? if this works, will I then be black holing the traffic for that Spoke since I have a more specific route?
... View more
Oct 31 2021
1:10 AM
Hello Community, I am designing Meraki solution for several countries which will be under one organization. Each of this countries will have Several MXs and Zs which will form autovpn with Hubs in routed mode located in each country. Am anticipating same subnet problem Inter-country for both Production networks and spokes Though inter-country communication is not required. Am aware Meraki Hubs in same organization will peer automatically. In regard to this I have below questions. 1. Assume I am not doing Site-to-site VPN Translation . How will the traffic flow in country A production hub A going to Spoke A (192.168.31.0/24) which is clashing with Country B Spoke B (192.168.31.0/24) network (Being advertised to Hub A by Hub B) look like? Does meraki have metrics for autovpn routes to make the longer path through an extra hop(HubB) less preferred ? 2. Is it possible for Meraki support to disable Hub to Hub auto peering within the same organization.? 3. Can site to site firewall rules be used to block autovpn traffic to and from the other countries?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Auto VPN
Oct 27 2021
9:00 PM
@cmr Thanks, Renumbering is changing the IP addresses to different ones right.
... View more
Oct 27 2021
2:12 PM
Since hubs within the same organization peer to each other automatically, will this cause a problem with crushing spoke IP subnets in different networks? Lets say spoke 1 peering with Hub 1 doesn't need to communicate with spoke 2 peering with Hub 2. Spoke 2 has similar IP Subnet like spoke 1. Am suspecting spoke 1 return traffic from hub 1 might be send to hub 2 hence causing a blackhole. Is this case. ? if for example spoke 2 decides to advertise a more specific route to HUB2. I am designing for several Hubs in one organization and each hub has over 30 networks. And there is possibility of similar IP Subnets in some networks
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Auto VPN
Oct 27 2021
1:35 PM
@PhilipDAth If spoke1 wanted to talk to spoke 2, spoke 1 would send traffic to hub1, which would then send it to hub2, and then onto spoke2. Lets say spoke 1 peering with Hub 1 doesn't need to communicate with spoke 2 peering with Hub 2. Spoke 2 has similar networks like spoke 1. Am suspecting spoke 1 return traffic from hub 1 might be send to hub 2 hence causing a blackhole. Is this case. ? I have several Hubs in one organization but am only doing a PoC for a client with just one spoke and one Hub.
... View more
Oct 27 2021
1:11 PM
@PhilipDAth So this means that from hub 1 can reach all routes being learned by hub 2. Does hub 1 automatically advertise the routes it learns from hub 2 to hubs spokes that are not peering with hub 2? what will be the impact on traffic to my spoke 1 peering with hub1, if I have a spoke 2 advertising a specific route to Hub 2 which again hub advertises automatically to HUB 1
... View more
Oct 27 2021
12:59 PM
Yes have checked with both Chrome and Moxilla,
... View more
Oct 27 2021
12:51 PM
@PhilipDAth Thanks . Any idea on the 1st question?
... View more
Oct 27 2021
12:33 PM
Hello Guys, I have two questions. 1. The routes status am learning from the hub via autovpn keep spinning up instead of being green. which is the correct status ? 2. On my Hub route table am seeing routes for the other Hubs although am not doing any site to site VPN with them. why is this the case?
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Auto VPN
Oct 24 2021
11:03 PM
@cmr Thanks. So that means, the Concentrator Interface IP needs to be changed from the floating Public IP to an a private IP reachable by the remote Branch via MPLS?
... View more
Oct 24 2021
1:03 PM
Hello Good People, Is it possible to achieve a design where by , VPN concentrator on NAT mode has a public IP(X.X.X.X) assigned on the internet port. This public IP is floating IP owned by the customer. A branch MX in routed mode has an MPLS link with an ip of 10.10.10.1. If both the branch MX and Concentrator have the same internet breakout on public IP (Y.Y.Y.Y). How will the VPN registry table look like ? will the autovpn peering be through source IPs or interface IPs (Entries on the VPN registry) ?
... View more
Oct 23 2021
2:18 PM
@PhilipDAth Thanks Understood. The document you have shared have also explained it pretty well. To use MPLS as primary and failover to AutoVPN will only work with static routing with MPLS link connected on the LAN port of MX. But since static routing will mean they do some redistribution of the static routes within the MPLS network, This makes the design complicated and the better option will be Meraki Validated design.
... View more
Oct 23 2021
1:21 PM
@PhilipDAth Thanks. Have checked on several MXs in NAT mode and have observed below. 1. On the uplink section(Internet port 1 and 2) it only has options for static assignment. 2.On the IP addressing section cant see anywhere to configure either BGP or OSPF. So in summary this means the clients requested design is not achievable not unless we do the routing over Auto VPN?
... View more
Oct 23 2021
1:14 PM
@Ryan_Miles Thanks a lot. I would propose the same. But I would like to know if the client use case can actually work. Since the Branch MXs will be in NAT mode, is it possible to have CE-PE routing protocol being BGP or OSPF peering on the LAN Port of the MX/Z3 in NAT mode.? and have the MX/Z3 as the gateway for LAN user traffic
... View more
Oct 23 2021
1:09 PM
@wwThanks . Have seen it is possible to do OSPF when the MX is put on VPN mode. But the client needs to have the branch MX/Z3s in NAT mode, have the gateways here for LAN traffic and at the same time route the LAN traffic to Data Centre via MPLS CE-PE routing protocol being either OSPF of BGP. is this achievable?
... View more
Oct 23 2021
10:32 AM
@KarstenI So it is possible to to have OSPF neighborship between MX and a cisco router on LAN. I know it is possible on MS switches but not sure on MX devices
... View more
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1621 | Oct 27 2021 1:11 PM |
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1683 | |
| 1 | 1126 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
