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 braham2019
About braham2019
braham2019
Here to help
Member since May 10, 2019
3 weeks ago
Community Record
16
Posts
8
Kudos
1
Solution
Badges
3 weeks ago
The problem is clearly with the Meraki AP having incorrect SNMP settings. See below snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 192.168.0.200 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: "=Meraki MR28 Cloud Managed AP" snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 192.168.0.155 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: "Meraki MR33 Cloud Managed AP" snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 192.168.0.160 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: "Meraki MR76 Cloud Managed AP" snmpwalk -v 2c -c public 192.168.0.167 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 iso.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: "Meraki MR33 Cloud Managed AP"
... View more
3 weeks ago
2 Kudos
After some back and forth with support and providing the necessary proof of the difference in OID string in comparison to other MR AP, I got the reply "I have reported this issue to our development team and they are looking into resolving it. I will keep your posted once a fix is released. " Let's see when that happens...
... View more
Apr 12 2024
12:33 AM
I use LibreNMS for SNMP. All of my AP show up correctly and are recognized by LibreNMS. .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: Meraki MR76 Cloud Managed AP However, the MR28 has a "wrong" string (the "=" is shown in the name), so that LibreNMS does not recognize this as a Meraki AP. .1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0 = STRING: =Meraki MR28 Cloud Managed AP Is there a way to override this ?
... View more
Nov 23 2022
11:18 PM
It's a bit more complicated it appears. I have 4 MR AP. One MR18 doesn't check in (old firmware). The two MR33 work just fine (running firmware MR 29.4.1) The MR76 (MR 29.4.1) on the other hand doesn't seem able to login. 2022-11-24 07:10:16: New connection from 192.168.0.74:45932 on port 1883.
error: received null username or password for unpwd check
2022-11-24 07:10:16: Client <unknown> disconnected, not authorised. I can do a packet capture, but I'm not sure what to look for.
... View more
Nov 23 2022
1:28 PM
Well, now it does seem to work (but not for all AP's) after I entered credentials for the eleventh time (it always does that every time I log a support ticket 🙄). I have 4 AP's: one MR18, two MR33 and one MR76. It appears indeed the MR18 doesn't show up in the Mosquitto logs (fine with me). All are on MR 29.4.1 except the MR18 (on MR 26.8.3) 2022-11-23 22:20:19: New connection from 192.168.0.73:48044 on port 1883.
2022-11-23 22:20:19: New client connected from 192.168.0.73:48044 as Q2PD-87Z4-EM6V:1911709132 (p2, c1, k60, u'mqtt').
2022-11-23 22:20:25: New connection from 192.168.0.72:35869 on port 1883.
2022-11-23 22:20:25: New client connected from 192.168.0.72:35869 as Q2PD-87NW-4884:477406211 (p2, c1, k60, u'mqtt').
2022-11-23 22:20:45: New connection from 192.168.0.74:41422 on port 1883.
error: received null username or password for unpwd check
2022-11-23 22:20:45: Client <unknown> disconnected, not authorised. So both the MR33 now work correctly (I see theire login in Mosquitto), but the MR76 (192.168.0.74) has issues
... View more
Nov 23 2022
12:50 PM
Hi, I have succesfully used MQTT for presence detection with a MQTT broker without username/password. However, when I reconfigure the MQTT server to require username and password, they are not being sent from the MR to my broker. They are, of course, configured in the Dashboard correctly. And they are working because I have other subscribers and publishers that use these credentials. This is the message I receive in the Mosquitto log: 2022-11-23 21:47:13: New connection from 192.168.0.74:41098 on port 1883.
error: received null username or password for unpwd check
... View more
Labels:
- Labels:
-
Other
Nov 17 2022
4:07 AM
6 Kudos
I guess I solved my own problem. I changed firmware from beta to stable RC MX 17.10.2 and the issue is gone.
... View more
Nov 17 2022
3:53 AM
I am experiencing the same slowness. and just posted it here as well (https://community.meraki.com/t5/Security-SD-WAN/MX-slowing-down-internet-speed-by-90/m-p/176009) I do have (and want) Intrusion detect set to prevent and malware protection enabled. I paid for it. It has also worked flawlessly for years on my MX65
... View more
Nov 17 2022
3:50 AM
Hi, Recently I found that 'local' internet access is rather slow. When I run various speed tests (wireless or wired), it gives very bad results. This is my (simple home) setup: ISP = MX64 == Switch 1 == Switch 2 / / /. / AP1 AP2 AP3 AP4 I have an MX64 with direct WAN connection as firewall, and then two Cisco switches as LAN switches. There's a Gbit uplink from switch 1 to MX via "Trunk port". The second switch is uplinked to switch 1 via Etherchannel (2x Gbit). All cabling is CAT5e. All MR are visible on the switches with Gbit speed. I have MR33, MR18 and MR76 access points. They all run the latest firmware for the specific model. I did some speed tests: - directly plugged into the ISP modem: 295 Mbps (maximum configured in modem is 300 Mbps) - from a computer located in switch 2 to a computer in switch 1, I get Gbit speed (940/975 Mbps) - from a wireless client connected to AP4 or AP1 to the internet: 40 Mbps - from a computer located in switch 1, switch 2 or the MX to the internet: 30 Mbps When I run a Dashboard Throughput test from any MR, I get 15 Mbps. When I run the same test from the MX, I get 260 or 280 Mbps. It seems to me the MX is slowing down internet traffic seriously. I didn't have this before (say last week) and I wonder it this is due to a recent update ? I am running the beta version MX 18.103 at the moment. Any thoughts ? Does it make sense to revert to (older) stable firmware ?
... View more
Jun 10 2022
5:38 AM
Hi, I have a MX65 which is supposed to have 250 Mbps maximum bandwidth. When I add another ISP to WAN2, will that also have 250 Mbps ? Because, when I look at to the Uplink configuration (under SD-Wan & traffic shaping), both sliders go up to 250 Mbps (I don't have a second WAN attached though). thanks
... View more
Nov 22 2019
5:37 AM
I have firewalled off a VLAN behind an MX65 and have create a FW rule to block ALL traffic from that VLAN to the other 3. I cannot ping a host in the other networks. However, I can ping all the default gateways from those networks. Is that normal behaviour ?
... View more
Oct 13 2019
11:42 PM
I have tried multiple options, including the deny local LAN option on the wireless. When I enable that, also the communiction from the wired portion of the LAN to the wireless portion blocks all traffic (and not only from wireless to wired). I guess this working as designed. I have the impression that my preferred setup (a single wired and wireless bridged IOT VLAN) does not seem to work with my setup. Therefore, I've simply added another VLAN, and thus have one IOT VLAN for wired and one for wireless devices. That seems to do the trick for now.
... View more
Oct 11 2019
6:17 AM
I stand corrected. Some wireless devices in VLAN 10 are reachable (pingable), others aren't...
... View more
Oct 11 2019
5:51 AM
Seems I made a mistake and things work fine now. Can't delete this post.
... View more
Oct 11 2019
5:35 AM
I am trying to achieve the following using MX65 and MR33/18 AP: I have a wired VLAN (10) for IOT devices that I don't want in my regular LAN (native VLAN). The MX hands out DHCP addresses (this works fine). I want to access the IOT VLAN from a wired or wireless device in my regular LAN, but not the other way around. This works fine. I have a separate SSID that sits in the same VLAN (10) and gets IP addresses in the same range from the DHCP server. This works fine. The SSID is setup in bridge mode on VLAN 10. Wired and wireless devices in that VLAN can talk to each other. However, I cannot access a wireless device in VLAN 10 through the LAN. What am I doing wrong ?
... View more
May 10 2019
2:00 AM
I've experienced the same issue (local LAN accessible through guest network). And I also tested this with a whitelisted client. Thanks Adam, you've pointed me in the right direction! I can safely say my guest network is isolated now.
... View more
My Accepted Solutions
| Subject | Views | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1112 | Nov 17 2022 4:07 AM |
My Top Kudoed Posts
| Subject | Kudos | Views |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | 1112 | |
| 2 | 561 |
© 2024 Cisco Systems, Inc.
