Limited support and costly setup detract from potential benefits
Pros and Cons
"The initial setup of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is straightforward, but the images are complex and expensive to set up because they do not provide those for free."
"The stability of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is not very good. The iOSs consume so much memory that most typical machines do not have sufficient memory to utilize."
What is our primary use case?
I have always used Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) in lieu of building practical labs and buying products for the labs so I can simulate configurations and test interoperability and things of that nature.
What is most valuable?
Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is not scalable in a way that helps with handling complex network simulations; I use GNS3 for the more complicated network. It does not help with any other kind of cost savings in the long run or efficiency gains.
What needs improvement?
There are other areas where they could improve the product in my opinion.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have had experience with Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) for as long as they have had the product.
What was my experience with deployment of the solution?
There is no integration when it comes to challenges faced while integrating Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) with other network management tools.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The stability of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is not very good. The iOSs consume so much memory that most typical machines do not have sufficient memory to utilize. For example, the Cisco 9200 iOSs require 24 gigabytes of memory to run in that tool, and that is only one image.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is not scalable in a way that helps with handling complex network simulations; I use GNS3 for the more complicated network.
How are customer service and support?
I rate the support from Cisco a one because you do not get any support.
How would you rate customer service and support?
Negative
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
The main differences between Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) and GNS3, which is what the professional grade people use, are that GNS3 is better virtualized, allowing you to put it on cloud servers and get more performance out of it.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is straightforward, but the images are complex and expensive to set up because they do not provide those for free.
What was our ROI?
The return on investment I see with Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is mainly due to the iOS you buy to support the different models for the products you are using, so theoretically, the only thing you gain is a lab environment.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
On a scale of 1 to 10, Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is about eight or nine in terms of expense.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
Cisco does not have anything that is better than GNS3 that I can think of.
What other advice do I have?
I would not recommend Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) to others; I do not think it is worth it.
My advice to people who are considering using Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is that it should be left in the classroom.
Overall, I would rate Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) a three or four.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?
Other
Disclosure: My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.
Offers cost-effective labbing for certification preparation through actual node images
Pros and Cons
"The ease of use of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is very valuable to me because it is straightforward."
"Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) could improve by providing more in-depth switch options. For example, I cannot lab stacking at all."
What is our primary use case?
My primary use case for Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is studying and ramping up on low-level certifications. I use CML to lab for certifications and generally for in-house labs to stay current with software-defined technologies.
What is most valuable?
The ease of use of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is very valuable to me because it is straightforward. The product provides actual images for all the endpoints or nodes. It is very accurate compared to other ways of labbing. It's also cost-effective, priced at $200 a year, allowing all-you-can-lab access, which is great for entry-level users. CML aids in learning and preparing for certifications effectively.
What needs improvement?
Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) could improve by providing more in-depth switch options. For example, I cannot lab stacking at all. Additionally, the accuracy of some solutions like WSA (Web Security Appliance) and ESA (Email Security Appliance), now called SWAN, is not comparable to a production environment.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have never dealt with complex scenarios using Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) and have mainly focused on simple labbing tasks.
How was the initial setup?
The initial setup of Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is straightforward and supported by extensive documentation.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) is very cost-effective at $200 a year, which provides great value compared to buying my own server or setting up a GNS3 or EVE-NG solution.
What other advice do I have?
I would rate Cisco Modeling Labs (CML) an eight out of ten. I recommend CML for being cheaper than buying a server or using AWS. It also offers less hassle than setting up GNS3 or EVE-NG. It is suitable for those looking for an affordable and effective labbing solution. The overall product rating is 8.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?
On-premises
Disclosure: My company does not have a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer.
