Connect. Secure. Manage.
Network Monitoring Noise Reduction
Reduce low-value Cisco and Meraki alerts through dependency awareness, threshold review and controlled tuning without hiding important failures.
Devices supported
across the UK
Client locations
supported
Traffic handled
at peak time
Average
response time
Average response is not a resolution time or a contractual guarantee. Support scope and response commitments are agreed for each engagement.
Network monitoring noise reduction makes important events easier to recognise without weakening the evidence needed to detect a real fault. The objective is not simply fewer alerts. MCI Network Services reviews Cisco and Meraki monitoring with the operating team, identifying duplicate symptoms, unsuitable thresholds and missing context, then validating changes against the failures the service must still reveal.
Useful visibility
Monitor service-relevant conditions rather than collecting alerts without ownership.
Controlled change
Keep maintenance, automation and configuration work reviewable and recoverable.
Clear escalation
Connect incidents to the right engineering, provider and business contacts.
Understand why alerts are being ignored
We begin with recent events, incident records and operator feedback. Repeated alarms may result from a genuine unresolved fault, an inappropriate threshold, a stale asset or several checks observing the same dependency. Those causes require different actions, so disabling the most frequent notifications is not an adequate review method.
The assessment also considers workflow. An alert may be technically correct but arrive without a site name, service owner or useful diagnostic information. Improving context and routing can make it actionable without changing the detection rule at all. We separate collection quality from the way events reach people.
Standards & partnerships
Confidence in the team behind your network.
Cisco Partner
Cisco Meraki
Cyber Essentials
Cyber Essentials PlusMCI Network Services is operated by Proxar Ltd. Certifications apply to the certified legal entity and the scope of its certificates. View accreditation information
Map dependencies before suppressing symptoms
A failed uplink can make many downstream devices appear unavailable. We review whether the monitoring system can represent that relationship and group or suppress expected secondary notifications appropriately. Operators still need visibility of the affected estate and a way to recognise a second independent fault.
Dependency assumptions are tested. A device that normally uses one path may remain reachable through another, and a simple parent-child diagram may not reflect that resilience. Correlation rules should follow the actual topology rather than hide alerts because they happen to occur near one another in time.
A useful starting point
Tell us what is happening.
A short description of the problem is enough for an initial discussion.
Revisit thresholds using service evidence
Utilisation, error and response thresholds should reflect the measurement interval and the service requirement. A short peak may be harmless, while a persistent smaller condition may affect an important application. We compare observed behaviour with incident evidence and agree the circumstances that genuinely need intervention.
Threshold changes are documented with their rationale and expected effect. We avoid adjusting them until all dashboards look green. Where a condition is real but cannot yet be fixed, the customer needs an explicit risk decision and a review point, not a silent monitoring exception that makes the problem disappear from view.
Different environments. The same care.
Built around the work
your network supports.
Finance, banking and the wider private sector. We start with the systems and people that depend on your connections.
Finance & banking
Market-data paths, routing and provider coordination on clients’ behalf.
Financial-market services ↗Offices & multi-site teams
Reliable access between people, workplaces and business applications.
Office network design ↗Data centres & cloud
Network boundaries, workload connections and operational ownership.
Data centre networks ↗Handle maintenance and expected transitions
Planned changes can generate predictable events, but suppression should be limited to the affected assets and period. We review how maintenance windows begin, end and relate to the change record. A suppression that remains active after work finishes can create a serious gap in coverage.
Recovery and flapping behaviour are also examined. Repeated up-and-down messages may be better represented as one continuing incident with updated state, while a genuine restoration still needs confirmation. The chosen behaviour should help operators understand the service rather than overwhelm them with an event for every brief transition.
Remove stale and duplicate monitoring safely
Retired devices, renamed interfaces and duplicated integrations can continue generating unnecessary work. We reconcile the monitoring inventory with the current estate and identify which record is authoritative. Removal is approved against evidence so a temporarily unavailable recovery system is not mistaken for an obsolete asset.
Duplicate alerts from different tools may still provide complementary information. We decide which system creates the incident and how other observations are attached, rather than deleting useful evidence simply because more than one platform reports the same outage. The operating process preserves context while reducing repeated notifications.
Validate that important failures remain visible
After tuning, we test representative fault and recovery cases using safe methods. The checks confirm detection, severity, delivery and ownership. A successful reduction in message volume is not accepted as the only outcome; the service must still reveal the conditions that justify monitoring in the first place.
We also check data freshness and collector health. A broken integration can produce an impressive reduction in alerts for entirely the wrong reason. Coverage measures and collection checks help distinguish genuine improvement from a monitoring system that has stopped observing part of the network.
Establish an ongoing review process
The deliverable records changed rules, retained exceptions, validation results and outstanding engineering actions. Each exception has a purpose and an owner. Reviews revisit new sites, applications and recurring incidents so the configuration evolves with the estate instead of returning to the same noisy state after a few months.
MCI can improve an existing system or incorporate noise reduction into network monitoring and telemetry. The service is evidence-led and platform-aware, with Cisco and Meraki events interpreted in their operational context. The aim is fewer distractions and better response to meaningful failures, not a quieter dashboard achieved by concealing risk.
Talk to a specialist
Need a specialist view?
Tell us what is affected, what changed and what your team has already checked. A short outline is enough to start.
+44 203 196 6566Choose option 1
sales@proxar.co.ukUK-wide service.
Most of our engineers are based in Kent, with a focus on London, Sussex, Essex and Berkshire.
Existing customers should use their agreed support and escalation channels. This form is for service enquiries, not a monitored emergency ticket.
Tell us what you need.
A short outline is enough. Please do not include passwords or sensitive network details.
Thank you. Your enquiry has been submitted.
Please check your name, email and message, then try again.
Your form session expired. Please try again.
Please wait a minute before sending another enquiry.
We could not submit your enquiry. Please call or email us instead.