Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
About Technomancer
Community Record
10
Posts
2
Kudos
0
Solutions
Badges
Aug 22 2024
5:47 AM
I agree. Essentially I'm blind now if there is an actual problem. Boss said that he's open to the idea of a GPO to turn off IPv6 but it's a "we'll get to it when we get to it" priority which means likely never.
... View more
Aug 12 2024
5:15 AM
2 Kudos
Actually, Meraki support came back to me with a reason. This is due to IPV6 multicast traffic that get dropped by the switch ports from different VLANSs which is incrementing the interface outdiscard number , that is being reported over the SNMP. We don't use IPv6 so IMHO the answer is we put in a GPO to disable IPv6 on PC NICs but boss doesn't think it's a good idea. So I just turned off monitoring for OutDiscardPercent on Meraki devices.
... View more
Aug 1 2024
1:34 PM
So I know this topic is a couple of years old, but I too am running LogicMonitor and seeing some huge "OutDiscardPercet" errors on my Meraki devices. It used to happen occasionally, but starting yesterday (7/31/2024) it's been like non-stop. Did you ever figure out if it was something legit or just some miscommunication between Meraki and LogicMonitor?
... View more
Nov 17 2023
5:02 AM
the SFP ports run primarily to the IDFs. Mostly multiple G links to the SAN and VMWare. As I said to Brash, it's a smallish remote site and putting something bigger in the core would be a waste. When we redo our primary it will be the MS300's series for the Core. You're idea is food for thought though.
... View more
Nov 17 2023
4:59 AM
It's a small remote site (like 142 access layer ports total) so the MS250's as the core work fine. Going for anything bigger would be overkill. Heck as it is the MS250's barely even wake up to pass traffic.
... View more
Nov 16 2023
6:43 AM
I understand that. I disagree with the philosophy. Frankly the whole statement of "switch stacks are treated as a single device" is sort of moot in Meraki. In a cat env, sure, it's handy to go to 1 spot for configuration, but you still have etherchannel ports running from each switch back to it's distro layer so that if 1 switch in the stack fails, the other switches in the stack can continue to communicate without issue and when all the stacks are up, you get the best throughput to your upstream. Point is, you're not going to win this argument. VRRP is not the answer. One should be given the option to either reboot a stack one device at a time or all at once. Forcing an all at once upgrade will basically prevent me from updating my stacks.
... View more
Nov 16 2023
6:32 AM
VRRP does nothing for me for port redundancy, only routed protocols. It is not the solution.
... View more
Nov 16 2023
6:26 AM
I'd argue that VRRP (Virtual Router Redundancy Protocol) is for routed redundancy, not physical port redundancy. A stack is for physical port redundancy.
... View more
Nov 16 2023
6:16 AM
I've got a couple of MS250 switches which are physically stacked that act as my core. Running off this core is my VMWare environment and SAN. In order for everything to stay happy, my VMware environment needs to be in constant communication with my SAN. If VMWare loses communication with the SAN, all the servers crash. We want to avoid this situation, which is why I've got a stacked pair of switches with redundant connections to the VMWare environment and SAN. This is great until you want to perform a firmware upgrade. You upgrade the stack and the whole stack reboots at the same time causing the entire VMWare infrastructure to crash. There has got to be a better way to upgrade a core that doesn't cause everything to crash. I mean, isn't the whole point of having a stack redundancy?
... View more
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
