ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Meraki Rate-Limits Z1 to 50Mbps

    IT Discussion
    cisco meraki meraki z1
    12
    28
    5.0k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • brianlittlejohnB
      brianlittlejohn
      last edited by

      Glad I never purchased any Meraki equipment. I demoed some then saw the recurring fee and decided against it.

      J 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
      • scottalanmillerS
        scottalanmiller
        last edited by

        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.

        RojoLocoR JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
        • Minion QueenM
          Minion Queen Banned
          last edited by

          The recurring fee makes them less than desirable for a lot of the SMB.

          scottalanmillerS MattSpellerM 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 3
          • scottalanmillerS
            scottalanmiller @Minion Queen
            last edited by

            @Minion-Queen said:

            The recurring fee makes them less than desirable for a lot of the SMB.

            And for the enterprise or anyone who could possibly be a customer.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • RojoLocoR
              RojoLoco @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @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.

              As if buying and using Cisco gear isn't painful enough lesson already...

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
              • scottalanmillerS
                scottalanmiller
                last edited by

                Not to mention the up front price being a problem too.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  Plus things like rate limiting and not being able to trust your vendor. Major hurtles.

                  A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                  • A
                    Alex Sage @scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    @scottalanmiller I think you mean roadblock.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • MattSpellerM
                      MattSpeller @Minion Queen
                      last edited by

                      @Minion-Queen said:

                      The recurring fee makes them less than desirable for a lot of the SMB.

                      My boss is a Cisco fanatic - even she says the fees are pure extortion.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 4
                      • JaredBuschJ
                        JaredBusch @scottalanmiller
                        last edited by

                        @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?

                        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @JaredBusch
                          last edited by

                          @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.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller
                            last edited by

                            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.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • J
                              Jason Banned @Nic
                              last edited by

                              @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.

                              NicN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • NicN
                                Nic @Jason
                                last edited by

                                @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.

                                J W 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • J
                                  Jason Banned @Nic
                                  last edited by Jason

                                  @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.

                                  NicN 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • NicN
                                    Nic @Jason
                                    last edited by

                                    @Jason you have a link to that newer statement?

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • J
                                      Jason Banned @brianlittlejohn
                                      last edited by

                                      @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.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • W
                                        WingCreative @Nic
                                        last edited by WingCreative

                                        @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.

                                        scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                        • J
                                          Jason Banned
                                          last edited by Jason

                                          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.

                                          dafyreD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • dafyreD
                                            dafyre @Jason
                                            last edited by

                                            @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.

                                            MattSpellerM quicky2gQ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 1 / 2
                                            • First post
                                              Last post