Cisco Wireless Reviews

We use FortiGate and Cisco switches. We use FortiGate as firewall and Cisco switches as core switch and distribution switches.

We use the 9000 series and 9200 series. We use Brocade switches with 10 gig interface.

We use Cisco Wireless Controller to control the access points. We use it for distribution to the access points for users. We use it to aggregate all the access points.

Everything is connected to our RADIUS server for authentication. We are currently setting up the policies and everything. When we are done with the policies, we will start looking at bringing in some other features.

Advanced threat detection is a key feature of Cisco Wireless.

Everything is connected to our RADIUS server for authentication. We use encrypted passwords for security. Users are being managed centrally from the controller.

Regarding advantages, it helped us aggregate all the access points and provides a single point connection for users. We can easily manage users centrally. It offers significant advantages in terms of controlling intruders, hotspots, and rogue access points on our network.

To improve Cisco Wireless, the ports on the access points are all 100 Meg, not 1 gig. We have not gotten a gigabyte interface of about 1,000, but the controller we have is just 1 gig. We would prefer if we could increase the controller to a 10 gig interface because we want to connect our controller to a 10 gig interface, which currently limits us to 1 gig.

When we want to move higher capacity data via wireless, it limits us to 1 gig.

We have been working with Cisco Wireless for the past 15 years.

The performance is excellent, rating 10 out of 10. We rarely have downtime. The stability is fine and reliable.

It is straightforward. Being not the first, second, or third time, the configuration process is straightforward.

We contacted support two years ago when we had an issue with upgrade. Cisco support generally is fine and fast. Once problems are logged in, we get responses. The Cisco forum also has good questions that help resolve problems and issues.

Positive

I have moved away from IT and am now working in healthcare.

We implemented through a Cisco partner. Cisco generally is expensive. We purchased our first Cisco Wireless about 16 years ago, and the last one was purchased six years ago.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Cisco Wireless an 8.

Cisco Wireless serves as a wireless access solution that enables employees to work mobile and connect to all applications from anywhere in the office. The major use cases include seamless mobility where access points interact with each other through anchor mobility controllers. When moving from one location to another within the office, users experience seamless handover between access points without facing call drops or connectivity issues.

Security is another primary use case, involving authentication and authorization that operates seamlessly so users are not prompted for a username and password every single time. Cisco Wireless also provides guest Wi-Fi functionality, which works with clients, partners, and contractors who occasionally work from or visit our locations. A complete workflow exists for guest and sponsor portal management.

Since 2015, I started dealing with Cisco Wireless primarily through the migration effort from autonomous access points in standalone mode to distributed autonomous mode. This involved hooking all access points into a WLC, wireless LAN controller. We had several projects to move from standalone to WLC 5508, which was the major undertaking. We gradually moved to different WLC models, configuring distributed CAPWAP mode and considering different authentication protocols, integrating that with NAC and Cisco ICE. Recently, we deployed Cisco WLC 9800 series for distributed wireless access points distributed locally and globally.

Regarding the AI capabilities of Cisco Wireless for network management, it provides an easy way to triage and figure out issues. Prompts allow querying functions such as determining where a particular client is connected, which access point it uses, and what the signal noise levels are. It functions more as a querying function rather than automatically adjusting access point signals when a user gets far away. If automatic adjustments occur, they happen in the backend without much exposure. The primary benefit is the ability to triage and identify what is where, and when users report issues, we can identify the users, location, endpoint, and nuances such as signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio. This provides an easier way to troubleshoot rather than moving across different panes in the portal. This is an AI function that is inbuilt, so we do not have considerable control over it.

Cisco Wireless does not integrate into network security and threat detection by itself. Integration with other tools is necessary for security functions. I do not think threat intel feeds can be ingested locally, and the platform must work with EDR or threat prevention tools. We handle security after the user is connected, with particular traffic landing on the wired network and passing through the firewall. We do not typically use native threat prevention capabilities because it becomes too cluttered and creates troubleshooting challenges when relying on the platform's primary functionality to provide wireless access while securing it simultaneously.

The areas for improvement are not challenges for every single version. We faced several issues with a few versions, primarily involving hardware and software compatibility where upgrades became necessary. A couple of our locations have devices deployed years ago that have remained stable. Other locations required device refreshes because those devices reached end-of-sale and end-of-life status, necessitating several iterations before reaching a stable state.

Cisco Wireless is generally stable. Although I do not have a particular uptime percentage such as 99.7% or 99.8%, it is fairly stable. The best aspect is that even if the WLC goes down, the access points stay up and remain functional. The mobility may suffer in such situations, but it does not result in complete downtime.

Cisco Wireless is a scalable product. Installing new licenses with the number of access points that the device WLC is expected to support makes it scalable.

I would rate technical support for Cisco Wireless as seven out of ten.

I rate technical support as seven primarily because other products exist in the market. For example, Aruba is another option, and we have that particular setup as well with Aruba mobility controller managing all Aruba access points. Aruba offers lower costs, and historically, we have faced fewer issues with Aruba. The support for Aruba appears pretty decent across the two or three clients we worked with and the one we currently have. The refresh cycle is not as aggressive with Aruba, meaning they will continue supporting products for longer durations without facing end-of-life and end-of-sale situations as frequently as Cisco does. Although Cisco does not do this often either, Aruba appears more relaxed in this regard, which also helps.

Positive

Regarding the comparison of Cisco Wireless to others on the market in terms of price, I have primarily compared it with Aruba and UniFi. UniFi is not considered very mature, especially for hundreds or thousands of users in a particular location. Aruba is definitely a strong competitor, and in many cases, it costs 40 to 45 percent of Cisco's price with the same feature set, same radios, and same Wi-Fi version, whether Wi-Fi 6 or 6E.

Installation and deployment of Cisco Wireless is usually not straightforward and can be complicated. It is hardware-based, so cabling, racking, and stacking are necessary. It will not be ready on day one or day two because many moving parts are involved. Although the individual components are straightforward, considerable work is required. Finding the rack, performing the racking, cabling, and establishing connectivity must happen first. Then installation, upgrades, configuring access points, and integrating those access points to use Cisco WLCs takes considerable effort. There is a learning curve involved as well. If someone has not done this before, it is not straightforward. Cisco's documentation is the best available, but if I were a person doing this the first time with no prior experience with wireless, I would certainly acknowledge that the technology itself requires learning, and the interface is not as seamless as something like Cisco Duo or others.

The impact on mobility within the company is quite substantial. With standalone access points, handoff typically cannot occur. This means when an endpoint or user moves a laptop from one location to another and the destination is far away from the first endpoint, problems arise because devices prefer to stay on the same Wi-Fi even if signal strength is down. Smart selection of access points at the time of handover is crucial. Having a WLC that allows tweaking of those functions is important, with signal-to-noise ratio and RSSI requiring particular values when handoff should be triggered. The mobility function is critical for mobile users. Mobility is not really necessary for desktop users or cameras, which are static. This is a very important parameter to measure the success of a particular solution. Cisco and Aruba function similarly in this regard, with Cisco being more expensive. It is an expensive way of solving the same problem statement, but it performs its job well. Mobility is great, and I have worked with it for close to ten years. Cisco Wireless is stable, and periodically there are feature releases and security advisories. Sometimes we experienced challenges with poor handoff impacting mobility, but that was more version-specific and could be resolved through upgrades or inputs provided by TAC on how to fix it.

Regarding ROI from using Cisco Wireless, it is difficult to gauge return on investment because it is a productivity function. The only metric we have used so far is the number of users or number of incidents reported by users, especially regarding slowness. We listed down several known issues or most frequently faced issues, one of which was certainly slowness because of poor signal. However, there are too many variables to isolate the cause, as sometimes applications are slow and it is not the Wi-Fi. A comparison from standalone to distributed WLC-controlled access points provides some decent ROI. I do not have specific numbers, but there is a decent return on investment when moving from standalone to a completely distributed wireless access with wireless LAN controllers. Moving from Aruba to Cisco or Cisco to Aruba, I am not certain if anyone even looks at those metrics.

Cisco Wireless does support diverse mobile devices, though I am not certain of all details. We do not use any special devices beyond access points that are Wi-Fi 6 and 6E compliant. We have WLCs, wireless LAN controllers, and licenses based on device count to manage the number of access points that the WLC can manage. On top of that, we perform integrations with Cisco ICE. We do not have any other devices such as temperature sensors or gate control devices.

The metrics I use to evaluate the performance of Cisco Wireless primarily include baseline metrics established at the time of installation. This depends upon the company and the policy, but the way we do it is twenty users per access point with a buffer of ten. Especially in densely populated offices, we keep that count low, meaning the number of users per access point decreases, and we do it deliberately. Apart from that, metrics for success include the mobility function. We check how many handoffs have occurred for different clients or end users across different access points. The signal-to-noise ratio and the least value after which handoff is triggered are monitored to ensure successful operation. It is not as precise as security metrics are, but it focuses on ensuring signal strengths are satisfactory, frequencies are aligned properly, and considering the frequencies that are enabled and the area of the premises. My overall rating for Cisco Wireless is seven out of ten.

My use case for Cisco Wireless is for a big enterprise, a very big enterprise environment.

We have a high density of users, and I prefer to use Cisco.

I prefer to use Cisco devices, Cisco APs, especially when there is high density, and I rely on reliability, especially in terms of performance, the radio performance.

Then I would prefer to go for Cisco.

The features of Cisco Wireless that I prefer the best are related to the fact that you can have their controller, their base controller.

For the controller, every Cisco AP that I have in my environment that is being supported by the controller can be integrated into my controller.

From my controller, I can do all the configs and then push the configuration to all the APs.

The way I deploy Cisco Wireless in my environment is floor by floor.

I am using the controller, a controller AP-based.

It's not standalone; I use a controller base.

The APs are working as lightweight.

Then I have the wireless controller pushing the configs to the APs.

The areas of Cisco Wireless that have room for improvement are especially the durability, performance, and reliability.

When comparing Cisco AP with Ruckus AP in a lab test, they are almost of the same grade and perform similarly.

When comparing Cisco Wireless to Ubiquiti, Cisco is much more reliable.

They have a very strong radio that is very powerful.

With Ubiquiti, the radio can fluctuate, and users might have association issues with Wi-Fi, especially for legacy devices.

For workstations that support legacy Wi-Fi standards, Cisco APs provide better backward compatibility.

It is much easier to accommodate both legacy devices and modern Wi-Fi devices on Cisco.

While Ubiquiti supports legacy devices, Cisco performs significantly better in comparison.

For technical support from Cisco, I need to purchase their license.

They have a license-based system with SmartNet and different kinds of license packages.

I have one for the product itself and one for support.

When I need Cisco support, I can contact their team, and they can assist me from wherever they are.

I would rate it nine out of 10.

Positive

Before Cisco Wireless, I used different basic solutions.

I used Ubiquiti, Ruckus, and other low-tier APs such as TP-Link APs and other low-end APs.

The initial setup of Cisco Wireless is straightforward if I am already a Cisco engineer and know how to configure their router and switches.

I am used to the command-line interface.

Configuring Cisco through the command line is way faster and much easier.

For technical persons with little knowledge of working with Cisco CLI, the GUI option is available to explore.

It is quite user-friendly and has a very intuitive interface that can be used to configure from fresh.

The ROI that I get using a Cisco AP is very high.

When I have my device today, I am guaranteed to use it for the next five years.

The price of Cisco Wireless is pretty expensive.

I am an end user of Cisco solutions, not a partner.

As an end user, I buy the product, install, and configure it.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Cisco Wireless a 9.

Positive

I am using the wireless solution as access points for offices and for Wi-Fi. I am actually a system integrator, implementing and doing solutions for clients.

The product is reliable. When I install it, I can forget about it because there is no need for ongoing maintenance, and no other problems occur. It does not require maintenance.

From my side, there is no immediate need for improvement. However, in the long term, there could be a cost reduction because it does not require much maintenance.

I have used the solution for around eleven months.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Positive

I have a technical team for installations.

We have around eight to ten people. We mainly have technicians for installations.

The setup cost involves licenses. Sometimes it requires three to five years, and it depends on the subscription. I sometimes face issues with clients regarding this.

I am working with Huawei and Cisco.

The reliability is notable. The product is beneficial except for the fact that it's a long-term installation. It will reduce the cost of maintenance. It depends on the scenario and what they are using. If it is a critical application or not, I would evaluate before recommendation. If it is critical and requires stability, a good product they are using, like in critical sectors, for example, governance sometimes, I recommend Cisco. But in small places like offices, a cheaper solution might be suitable. I can go for other brands. Overall product rating: Eight out of ten.

Our environment has many devices constantly moving within our environment—approximately 3,000 devices daily, many of which change locations every 45 minutes. Therefore, the tool's seamless handoff is valuable for us. It's one of the reasons we have stayed with the product. 

We maintain a strict security profile through a layered design approach. We implement a layered approach rather than relying solely on one device or package for security. 

There are areas for improvement with Cisco Wireless, as well as with wireless technology in general. For instance, while Wi-Fi 6 offers significant advancements, some unresolved issues and quirks have delayed our migration to this standard. 

I have been working with the product for 25 years. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Our environment typically involves serving approximately 5,300 users daily, with an average of over 3,000 devices connected at any given time. The tool is scalable. I rate it a ten out of ten. 

One main difference between Cisco Wireless and other wireless products, such as HPE, is their management platforms. HPE's management platform is often perceived as more intuitive than Cisco Wireless's. However, it's important to note that we don't utilize either vendor's management platform. Instead, we manage our wireless infrastructure directly from the access points. Each AP within our clusters functions as a management AP. 

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. It can be completed in half a day. We have two resources involved in the deployment process. We generally aim to maintain our access points for around five years, with occasional replacements needed due to disruptions or failures. However, we haven't encountered significant maintenance issues with Cisco Wireless.

Given our government-mandated budget constraints, the design and deployment of our wireless infrastructure with Cisco Wireless have provided significant flexibility in reallocating funds within our organization. 

We opt for a one-time purchasing fee model in our setup. Since we don't utilize a management platform or WLAN controller, there are no recurring costs. The access points we typically use, which support Cisco's wireless masters, are priced at around $250 each. Occasionally, we purchase them in packs of five or as part of extended packs at a prorated cost.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. I recommend Cisco Wireless. The way we designed and deployed it, considering cost is always a significant factor for us, has proven to be more than affordable. With the extensive deployment of access points throughout our infrastructure, Cisco Wireless aligns well with our budget. Moreover, it is compatible with 2.4 and 5 gigahertz and Wi-Fi 6, which perfectly meets our requirements.

We use the solution for mobility. Our clients use the solution in the manufacturing, education, hospitality, and sports industries. We do some work for Formula 1. We are using versions 17.3 to 17.9.4.

The solution is very good at supporting IoT applications. Cisco's Unified architecture is second to none. The move to 6-GHz and WPA as mandatory standards is good. We can secure mobility between the older IOS controllers and the new Catalyst Wireless LAN Controllers. We can use our own PKI environment. We can register APs against the Wireless LAN Controller using our own certificates.

We need not rely on the manufacturer-installed certificate, which has a validity period of ten years. Many hospital environments have APs older than ten years because the manufacturer certificate expires after ten years. Those APs drop off the network. Putting our own certificates gets us around that problem.

The solution’s management tools massively streamline network operations. DNA Center has come a long way since its inception. We can switch to the Catalyst Controller with the wizard on the box or the Day 0 setup wizard through DNA Center. It takes much effort out of the switchover between the Wireless LAN Controllers. We can manage the configuration. Whether it's an SDA environment or a non-SDA fabric, we can easily deploy the Wireless LAN Controller.

Assurance capabilities must be improved. There should be more Assurance features on the Wireless LAN Controller. A lot of it is bundled into the DNA Center. Having a little more Assurance regarding what the RF Spectrum looks like will be good. Juniper Mist has a lot of analytical data on the dashboard.

The customers would be compelled to look at DNA Center as a longer-term and more comprehensive solution if Cisco were to give them an insight into some of the Assurance capabilities that might be available in DNA Center. The tool must provide something like RF Neighbor. It must enable organizations to receive signal strength and signal-to-noise ratio and see how clients perform in their wireless network. It must have a cap. If we want additional functionality to see our entire network, that's where DNA Center fits in.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The tool is stable. The statefulness between the controllers works well. Uptime is very strong. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. It is a very stable platform.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless has benefited our customers. We love Cisco 1900. It has all the features from the previous controllers. The way that the architecture is built in the box is massively more scalable than the old one. We can spread processes over different resources using tags. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Our customers are small, medium, and large enterprises.

The setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten. The deployment takes up to an hour if we have to do some software upgrades.

The pricing is reasonable. We license the APs and not the controllers.

Compared to other companies like Juniper, Aruba, and Extreme, Cisco APs tend to perform better.

I work for a partner. I have only used physical controllers. People who want to use the tool must review the Miercom reports. The reports are independent tests that Miercom runs against Cisco and its competitors. I haven't read one where it hasn't been Cisco that has come out on top. If your enterprise wants a stable, high-performing, and resilient wireless tool, Cisco is the solution for you. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company since we have tablets, which are handheld devices that need wireless connections. Our company uses the tool for our walkie-talkies, laptops, wireless phones, and transit devices.

My company needs wireless devices and access point devices to operate our handheld devices.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance, which is okay. Cisco Wireless has good integration features and is easy to use.

What my company doesn't like about the product is related to the coverage it provides to access points, an area which is one of the most important ones for us.

One of the bad things about Cisco Wireless is that with every new wireless controller, the access points are shown as out of service. The oldest wireless access points in our company cannot, most of the time, work with the latest wireless controller offered by Cisco.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for fifteen years.

It is a very stable solution. My company uses various redundancy models since it is the most important factor for ensuring stability.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is used for around 3,000 to 5,000 devices.

Right now, my company has opted for a product from another vendor, Huawei, to increase the use of the same functionalities provided by Cisco Wireless.

As the product is stable, there has been no need to contact the tool's technical support team. The technical support team of the product is good since they have always been available anytime our company tried to contact them.

My company uses Aruba and Huawei.

My company has seen that Huawei's lifecycle management system is the best. Huawei is best for managing devices, which is why my company likes the tool. Huawei is also easily available in the market, so you can place an order and get it immediately. Huawei Office has better coverage than the devices that fall under Cisco.

The product's initial setup phase was straightforward.

For the product's deployment phase, our company makes a plan. After the installation process of the product on an on-premises model, my company builds service accounts with the application team. In the area of the security offered by the firewall, some of the ports are kept open, after which we integrate it with the back-end devices. We use three security zones for the gateway, including the pre-shared key, captive portal, and SMS message through which users can log in to the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

As there is a need to transfer certain services from one account to another during the product's on-premises deployment phase and integration, which is taken care of by our technical personnel, it takes around a month to complete the deployment process.

Two engineers and four technicians are required to take care of the deployment and maintenance of the product.

My company did not just see the help of consultants but also engineers from Cisco to help us with the product's installation process and for all the tips for the deployment and the integration with the wireless controller.

The price of Cisco Wireless is the same as that offered by Huawei.

Presently, there is no difference in the prices between Cisco and Huawei.

There is a need to renew the licenses for Cisco Wireless every three years. My company needs to pay around 25 percent of the budget meant for the tools we purchase towards the price of Cisco Wireless.

The payment made towards the licensing is not for the operational purpose of the product but towards the support, which is why it may come across as an expensive product to many.

My recommendation to others about the product depends on why they want to use it. There are so many types of wireless controllers from other vendors like Cisco, Huawei, and HP, but Cisco is the best one for stability. For the coverage Cisco Wireless provides, I won't recommend it.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

Positive

Most of the routers are in the enterprise network for connections and branches. We used to use them in the data center, but we stopped.

The signal at the branch is good and has been the most valuable aspect for network management. The documentation is readily available and accessible.

The pricing could be better. It could be cheaper.

I have been using it for about ten years. 

Stability is fine.

I would rate the scalability a seven out of ten. There are about 4,000 end users. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The documentation is available.

Normally, we start with a proof of concept for a certain environment. 

It is expensive.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. I would recommend others to use it.