As a fellow Meraki partner, I really understand @Nick frustration. We design, and implement solutions based on the knowledge gained from the official documentation. We as architects and partners work with our clients to make selected solution choices, to meet their current and future requirements this to, fit price points, address complexity, etc.. We do all this while evangelize Meraki simplicity. I understand that products evolve and that Meraki is all about the platform and not the "speeds and feeds" of the boxes. But, the performance characteristic of the boxes are still a significant input into the overall design considerations and longevity of the solutions we create. In most cases, these solutions are consumed for extended periods of time. Designing solution using the biggest box available such as the MX250/450 "just to be sure" that we will not run into these type of problems, is a none starter. It detracts from what Meraki is. This approach leads to competing vendor technology being better priced, better scaled with referenceable specifications which gives the partner and clients peace of mind. With a significant drop in the MX device performance being noted across multiple community threads affecting a range of products, I agree with @cmr I really hope that Meraki has a very good explanation and a way forward for impacted clients. At the very least publish up-to-date and accurate performance specifications, including actual throughput at the tested software release, and the numbers of actual supported TCP/UDP flows across the device. The Meraki Support standard answer that you need to "buy a bigger box" just inflames the issue more. Ok rant over 🙂
... View more
