Meraki Rate-Limits Z1 to 50Mbps
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That is absolutely ridiculous. Sounds like someone at Ubiquiti is paying Cisco to cripple their gear to teach customers a lesson for having bought from the "big name" vendor.
Where the hell did that come from? Insinuating bad shit on Ubiquiti for Cisco's screw up?
It was sarcasm. That it sounds like Cisco is letting someone intentionally cripple their gear so that their competitors look better. Ubiquiti is the only real competitor here.
-
But you are right, it could just be an outright hatred of customers or internal sabotage or a gamble that their customers are unbelievable suckers.
-
@Nic said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/meraki/comments/41laj8/did_the_z1s_just_get_a_bandwidth_lock_pushed_down/
Looks like they added this in after the fact, which is a bit of a dick move.
This is misrepresented. The Uplink Bandwidth is not a throttle, it's used to do QoS/thortlling on SSIDs that are to Scale (of the overall bandwidth). Likely just something is wrong in the config or there's some other firmware bug.
-
@Jason meraki says it's not a bug - here's there response:
As discussed in our Z1 datasheet (https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_z1.pdf) the rated throughput for the MX (firewall) is 50Mbps.
Therefore the speeds you are achieving are correct and are within the specifications as outlined in the datasheet.
If you were previously achieving higher speeds and have now seen a drop in performance this may be caused by changes within the new firmware update. However your device is still achieving speeds as specified within the datasheet. -
@Nic said:
@Jason meraki says it's not a bug - here's there response:
As discussed in our Z1 datasheet (https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_z1.pdf) the rated throughput for the MX (firewall) is 50Mbps.
Therefore the speeds you are achieving are correct and are within the specifications as outlined in the datasheet.
If you were previously achieving higher speeds and have now seen a drop in performance this may be caused by changes within the new firmware update. However your device is still achieving speeds as specified within the datasheet.Actually Cisco has already said they think there is a bug in the dashboard software causing it.
But yeah expecting more than it's rated bandwidth is still on the customer, not Meraki.
-
@Jason you have a link to that newer statement?
-
@brianlittlejohn said:
Glad I never purchased any Meraki equipment. I demoed some then saw the recurring fee and decided against it.
We found the costs to not really much different than paying for smartnet (now totalcare) for our old APs.
-
@Nic said:
@Jason meraki says it's not a bug - here's there response:
As discussed in our Z1 datasheet (https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_z1.pdf) the rated throughput for the MX (firewall) is 50Mbps.
Therefore the speeds you are achieving are correct and are within the specifications as outlined in the datasheet.
If you were previously achieving higher speeds and have now seen a drop in performance this may be caused by changes within the new firmware update. However your device is still achieving speeds as specified within the datasheet.Sounds like someone forgot to flip a "don't go above rated throughput, if they want more they'll pay more" switch in the firmware until today.
-
It's not unusual, many Cisco routers require a paper licence when you go above certain bandwidth limits on them (mean they are a paper licences not one that's enforced by software, much like CALs, CUBE etc) Many of them are per 100MB for the WAN.
Our palo alto's require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.
-
@Jason said:
... require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.
This is what drives me crazy about companies these days... Let me pay for a box that is sized for the network I want. If it can handle more than my current bandwidth, great! Don't make me buy a paper license just because I have a 300Mbit internet connection and your box is rated for 200 megs, but I am aactually seeing the full 300.
This is why I prefer to build my own firewall... Shorewall + Snort (or Suricata) + DansGuardian +ClamAV = Win. (Or you can just use pfSense)... Gotta build a beefy box to make it all run nice and smooth and not choke your internet.... But still probably a far cry cheaper than Palo Altos, et al.
-
@dafyre I need to try doing one like that
-
@MattSpeller said:
@dafyre I need to try doing one like that
Not hard to do once you figure out where the pieces go, and which ones to use, lol.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@dafyre I need to try doing one like that
I would never do that. I am firmly in the camp of Content filtering belongs on its own thing.
-
Same here, I keep content filtering outside of the firewall / router.
-
@WingCreative said:
@Nic said:
@Jason meraki says it's not a bug - here's there response:
As discussed in our Z1 datasheet (https://meraki.cisco.com/lib/pdf/meraki_datasheet_z1.pdf) the rated throughput for the MX (firewall) is 50Mbps.
Therefore the speeds you are achieving are correct and are within the specifications as outlined in the datasheet.
If you were previously achieving higher speeds and have now seen a drop in performance this may be caused by changes within the new firmware update. However your device is still achieving speeds as specified within the datasheet.Sounds like someone forgot to flip a "don't go above rated throughput, if they want more they'll pay more" switch in the firmware until today.
That's exactly what it is.
-
@dafyre said:
@Jason said:
... require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.
This is what drives me crazy about companies these days... Let me pay for a box that is sized for the network I want. If it can handle more than my current bandwidth, great! Don't make me buy a paper license just because I have a 300Mbit internet connection and your box is rated for 200 megs, but I am aactually seeing the full 300.
This is why I prefer to build my own firewall... Shorewall + Snort (or Suricata) + DansGuardian +ClamAV = Win. (Or you can just use pfSense)... Gotta build a beefy box to make it all run nice and smooth and not choke your internet.... But still probably a far cry cheaper than Palo Altos, et al.
You must have loads of fun troubleshooting all those individual systems when something is blocked that shouldn't be.
-
@quicky2g said:
@dafyre said:
@Jason said:
... require more fees for more throughput being used on the same device.
This is what drives me crazy about companies these days... Let me pay for a box that is sized for the network I want. If it can handle more than my current bandwidth, great! Don't make me buy a paper license just because I have a 300Mbit internet connection and your box is rated for 200 megs, but I am aactually seeing the full 300.
This is why I prefer to build my own firewall... Shorewall + Snort (or Suricata) + DansGuardian +ClamAV = Win. (Or you can just use pfSense)... Gotta build a beefy box to make it all run nice and smooth and not choke your internet.... But still probably a far cry cheaper than Palo Altos, et al.
You must have loads of fun troubleshooting all those individual systems when something is blocked that shouldn't be.
Ha ha ha. Nope. If it's a website, it's DansGuarian. If it's an App, then it is Snort / Suricata blocking it.
(In my last build, I used Suricata to block the applications we didn't want on the network).If it's not Snort / Suricata, then it's the Firewall not allowing outgoing ports.
