This is exaclty what I needed!  I'm pretty sure the software is still being loaded the same way, and likly behaves the same as the MS390.  This feels like a rebranding excersize. Thank you so much @alemabrahao !  ... View more

This sounds like the MS390, and the Catalyst 9300-M are the exact same platform, but shipping with newer software.  Can you please confirm that architecturally the MS390 and the Catalyst 9300-M are the same, the difference is the SKU, the model name, and the shipping software? Does it run the software differently, does it operate differently?  Is there any real difference between these two platforms? ... View more

Its funny you say that, I don't know many enterprise switch vendors including Cisco's catalyst, who don't do this.  The MS355 is one of Meraki's top tier switches along with the ms420 and 450, you're telling me these guys dont have the CPU and mem to replicate traffic to a port like any lower end entry class enterprise Catalyst switch?  The argument can be made for an ms120, if you said that for the lower end switch I would agree,  but for Meraki's top switch line?  In this day and age, not having it on your top switch lines is simply inexcusable.   The "Make a Wish" portal is not useful.  Its been submitted and is in there, but I think its just a 🗑.  I say, I love Meraki, but I just don't know who they are listening to when it comes to adding the functionality we all need. ... View more

All, I ran into this issue myself for the first time today.  I have 3 SSIDs 1 private and 2 guests. Guest uses NAT mode.  I read all the posts on this thread and (1) kind of worked.  Under Firewall & traffic shaping, I set LOCAL LAN access from Block to allow, and I created ACLs to block 172.16.0.0/12, 10.0.0.0/8 and 192.168.0.0/16.  After I did that, the problem became sporadic.  The guest users could make a call, and about 10 to 15 seconds later the call would go silent on both sides, and sometimes the call just wouldn't connect just like when the problem first started.  Here was my fix, that worked for all my sites.   I kept the ACL rules I described above, but instead of letting the AP proxy the DNS requests, I changed Content Filtering from "Don't Filter Content" to Custom DNS, and I issue the Guest 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1.   It worked 100% of the time after that.  I don't want to pretend I understand the programing here, but I think that when "Don't Filter Content" is enabled, the AP takes the users DNS requests and makes the request on behalf of the user.  I think something gets lost in translation when it comes to wifi calling, and wifi calling breaks.  Maybe the @Meraki support team can do something with this information to fix the problem, but this 100% worked for me.  I hope it works for you...Good luck out there my friends!   ... View more

Agreed, I was thinking the exact same thing, I was just hoping that someone else out there may have tried it before I put skin in the game. ... View more

The problem is, there are so little complaints on this topic, they won't likely fix it.  Since there are several work arounds, no one seems to complain.  I did come across this a few more times since I made the original post, I just changed the ADC configuration to work with the switching.  Cisco is about the big customers, the big clients (the whales), the little people like us get heard, but simply pat on our heads and asked to move along. ... View more

But my question is this, and I’m not so sure why so many don’t understand this…   If I have Virtual Workstations (AVD), or for that matter, have severs I want to create NATs for, why is the firewall not capable of being configured like any other Meraki MX firewall?  Meraki can’t seem to answer that question.   I have built Cisco FTD firewalls in Azure, and they form VPN tunnels, and can be used in routed mode to allow full blown NAT, I have used other vendor firewalls to do the same, all in Azure.  Why is it specifically, that the Meraki firewall HAS to be used as a single arm concentrator, and if you want it in routed mode, then it’s a “work around” to get “some” NATing functionality.   I need Meraki staff to step in on this conversation, believe you me, I will be at Cisco live, and the Meraki desk, and looking for the BU owner to get a real answer… ... View more

Thanks alemabrahao, I know very well how to build the vMX in Azure, I don't need the doc.  That's not my problem.  My problem, is why would Meraki build an appliance with such a handicap? ... View more

FYI, the issue I was facing turned out not to be Meraki, or MTU or routing at all.  I resolved my issue with this: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/release-health/windows-message-center#2772   Take action: Out-of-band update to address a Windows Server issue ... View more

I just re-read this...I was pretty angry.....I'm glad I can think back on this and laugh about it, but it really was upsetting to have to go back and rebuild the box, exactly one year later.. ... View more

I'm running a full catalyst switching stack, with Meraki MX interconnecting each location using the Autovpn, ever since implementing the Meraki's with Auto VPN my RDP connections are having connection issues.  I perfomed wiresharks and the packets is the wireshark look to be at 1240 to 1400 in size.  I'm tempted to manaully redice the MTU on my test devices to see if it makes a difference, but at least per wireshark MTU shouldn't be a problem.  I'll update soon.   ... View more

True, but keep in mind, it is not always an IT professional at the wheels. Implementation engineers drop, set and forget. When a customer accidentally makes a change, and there is no parachute for them, their accident becomes a bigger outage. All we're talking about is a simple revert option, something that maybe triggers the local switch(es) to revert it's config to get back online.  Honestly, this concept is rudimentary, and almost surprises me that it doesn't exist already. ... View more

Right, for people like you and I, but MSPs sell Meraki on the Basis of "Ease of Use", when you point a customer at APIs to make backups and restores, the pretty "ease of use" shine starts to get dull.      Meraki needs to add this, so those ease of use customers have an easy fall back for basic changes, and of course the customer can reach out to the MSP for bigger more complex rollbacks.     ... View more

OH, and before you ask, yes, I "made a wish / provided feedback" ... View more

I saw this post and thought I would offer assistance.  In the past you had to use Cisco's  AIR-CHNL-ADAPTER brackets and mount the Meraki Adapters to it. Meraki has its own clips that work like the AIR-CHNL-ADAPTER brackets, but look like the normal adapters that are shipped with APs.  The difference is the clips are deeper.  I know it's hard to describe but this part number: MA-MNT-CLG-1  includes a pair of deep drop ceiling clips for channel rail as well as spare T-Rail adapter clips which supports both recessed T-Rail and flush T-Rail. The deep drop ceiling clip works well with "Armstrong Silhouette" and similar ceiling grids which are found in newer building designs, its basically a channel rail (not a T-Rail). This kit is compatible with all Meraki MR access points and MV21 & MV71 security cameras.  Everyone knows the T-Rail here's a good picture of it:   Meraki APs Come with an adapter for this by default. but If you want to mount on    the channel rails pictured above, you will want to order MA-MNT-CLG-1 separately when ordering your APs. Good luck out there all!!!  HTH! ... View more

This is an old post, but I did want to mention, that whether an SFP is supported or not there is no way (at least is seems) to see what SFP is plugged into a port, if the port is aggregated.  Once you aggregate the port you lose the ability to see the SFP details.  The only way I can see it, is if I unbundle the ports in the agg group, then look at the port details (thats not cool or kosher) ... View more

Hi Tore, no doubt the the vMX-100 license works on vMX-M. The issue is that I was not allowed to renew the vMX-100 license, I had to go with the vMX-M license because I only had a month left on it. If it expired I would have been left out in the cold with a vMX-100 unlicensed. I was forced to go to vMX-x, and had to replace the box. Meraki literally EoL a piece of software right from under me. Meraki will continue to support the vMX-100 box, but that's for customers who had 5 and 10 year licensing. Us poor year to year saps are forced to replace the box because the vMX-X licensing doesn't work on the vMX-100 installs we already had. I sense some Meraki sneakyness.... ... View more

So I just discovered this the hard way too.  Meraki communication here was horrid.  I would have hoped that maybe a dashboard banner or something to warn users of this change.  On top of this I have to build a whole new appliance to make this work.  I am beyond livid.  Lastly, documentation on migrating from VMX100 to VMX-M is non existent.  Support sent me this: https://documentation.meraki.com/Meraki_Internal/Draft_Articles/vMX100_to_vMX_S%2F%2FM%2F%2FL%2F%2FXL_Transition_FAQ Its not even a public facing document, can't be opened, don't bother clicking... I'm not a happy user of Azure, and having to go back in there and build yet another appliance because Meraki decided to change their pricing model makes me throw up in my mouth!!!!!  I am absolutely disgusted that I have to literally replace a virtual machine, its freaking software!!!! UPGRADE IT IN SOFTWARE, don't give me more work!!!!!!  LIVID IS NOT EVEN A WORD TO DESCRIBE HOW I FEEL AT THIS VERY MOMENT! ... View more