Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About FRanky
FRanky
Here to help
Member since Sep 5, 2017
Feb 19 2018
Community Record
9
Posts
0
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Nov 16 2017
11:03 AM
We would like to make a 30 day trial with two MX gears with Advanced Security license. q1: We hope this is a possible trial we would like to make? q2: Will we have an Administrator with Full access to the Meraki dashboard? q3: How many users can we declare. Is there any limitation in this area? q4: Is there any other rectrictions/limitations, regarding this Demo environment? q5: is there a checklist of what we should prepare before interacting with the Meraki Support?
... View more
Nov 16 2017
11:02 AM
We would like to make a 30 day trial with two MX gears with Advanced Security license. q1: We hope this is a possible trial we would like to make? q2: Will we have an Administrator with Full access to the Meraki dashboard? q3: How many users can we declare. Is there any limitation in this area? q4: Is there any other rectrictions/limitations, regarding this Demo environment? q5: is there a checklist of what we should prepare before interacting with the Meraki Support?
... View more
Nov 14 2017
10:46 AM
1-Here you are describing a hub&spoke topology with a single WAN (internet) uplink while my topic is for a dual uplink WAN for each site in the case of SDWAN. The magnitude is more when you have an SDWAN with dual port/WAN at each location and probing against each other the realtime SDWAN thresholds; 2-I've asked the question for the other topology which an SDWAN customer may want and they may not want to depend on one hub which all the other sites goes only through it to exchange and this is my second question actually of my question: "2) Has anyone made any calculation for an SD-WAN meshed/any to any VPN topology, which naturally upsizes the number of tunnels above the hub&spoke case above? With the same reasoning in terms of number of SD-WAN tunnels but applied to the any-to any case here, I made some rapid calculations: 10 sites 20 sites 50 sites 180 tunnels per MX so we need 10xMX100 760 tunnels per MX so we need 20xMX400 4900 tunnels per MX so we need 50xMX600 Can anyone confirm these orders of magnitude and model sizing, please? Many thanks
... View more
Nov 14 2017
10:16 AM
Yes I understand what you say, BUT how does it apply to SDWAN as this overlay needs to probe the tunnel quality between each other? If you attach some MX of your network to some hubs you're losing this direct & interactive probing between the MX of the other branch you built depending from another hub. Does this SDWAN is still functioning conceptually?
... View more
Nov 14 2017
5:19 AM
Regarding the SDWAN topology sizing, we have to comply with the MX sizing guide which indicates the maximum number of tunnels per MX model : e.g.: for an M64, this max is 50 tunnels and for an MX84 it's 100 tunnels max and for MX100 it's 250 tunnels max. 1) If we take the hub&spoke VPN topology for an SD-WAN overlay with 'n' deployed sites, this tunnels number 'T' follows the logical rule T=4x(n-1). Hence, if we have 10 sites with 1 hub and 9 spokes (each site having a MX with 2 WAN ports), this makes T=36 tunnels= 4x(10-1) which allows 10xMX64 to be deployed; for 20 sites this makes T=76 and we need 20xMX84 (no more MX64 possible); for 50 sites, T= 196 and we need 50xMX100 _ according to Meraki whitepaper MX sizing guide ('concurrent VPN tunnels*' line) 2) Has anyone made any calculation for an SD-WAN meshed/any to any VPN topology, which naturally upsizes the number of tunnels above the hub&spoke case above? With the same reasoning in terms of number of SD-WAN tunnels but applied to the any-to any case here, I made some rapid calculations: 10 sites 20 sites 50 sites 180 tunnels per MX so we need 10xMX100 760 tunnels per MX so we need 20xMX400 4900 tunnels per MX so we need 50xMX600 Can anyone confirm these orders of magnitude and model sizing, please? Many thanks
... View more
Sep 18 2017
10:04 PM
Thanks for the reply, very helpful two more questions going with it : q1:you said that the MX "cannot handle labelled traffic" directly with as an MPLS CE connecting to a provider PE. The Dashboard offers the possibility to make Traffic shaping rules with DSCP tagging for some traffic we can define, which is the natural way MPLS tags/prioritize the packets. Does this marking will be passed to the CE device (and vice-versa) and be interpreted end to end? q2: you said "Auto-VPN would still have to be done on a circuit that offers some level of Internet access.The topology scenario I linked actually has the MPLS connection terminating on the LAN side, not the WAN." which is fine. Actually, if it your topology terminated to the WAN (and not to the LAN side), how can you organize to get this MPLS have an exit to internet: do you know if we can add a device (fw) and how to program it ? is that a Meraki device we could add in the WAN after a CE router?
... View more
Sep 11 2017
1:43 PM
Do we have any indication where is the Meraki dashboard (and the entire engine) located? Within a Cisco facility? another ? What is the Resilience we have there? What happens if this site fails?
... View more
Sep 5 2017
11:59 AM
Hello, I'm questionning about several things on this SD-WAN configuration for your MX: 1- On its MPLS WAN port, the MX seems to directly act as an MPLS CE (Customer Equipment) in front of the PE from the MPLS carrier, right ? 2-if yes, what are the possible protocols that MX can run in such case: BGP, OSPF, another? What have you programmed here with your MPLS partner/carrier? 3- In the case of MPLS, MX still needs an Inernet breakout to establish its AutoVPN. How did you create this Internet breakout while some carriers really block any Internet breakout to their MPLS? Is that something you questionned before installing your MX and taking your provider? Thanks!
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
