Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is used for wireless network conductivity.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is that it is easy to configure. Additionally, with the same configuration with Cisco and Ruckus, we can receive  55 to 60 percent more out of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

If you're unwilling to purchase or spend money on a controller, you can opt for a virtual console base solution that offers up to 120 access points. This approach is highly cost-effective, as you won't have to raise your budget, and it's easy to set up.

When it comes to configuring rules for file security tests, any issues that arise can be referred to as "glitches". Despite the extensive configurations required, the process itself is not overly complicated.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for approximately three years.

When I open a support ticket with Aruba, it goes to their team in Bangalore, India. While I cannot say they are the worst, I am not perfectly happy with their support. Recently, I closed a ticket with them that took over seven days to resolve a simple issue of adding a MAC address to the control. This slow support process can be a problem, especially if the customer has a live network. However, I have noticed that their CCAs are now more professional than they were three years ago. Sometimes, Aruba avoids alerting by opening tickets after their official time, which goes to the European team. Similarly, we do the same for Cisco to reach their European team for faster and more knowledgeable support. Currently, Aruba's support is not as scalable as Cisco or Roper, although Roper's team is also in Bangalore. 

As an on-site engineer, I sometimes open support tickets when I suspect a configuration mistake, but it can be confusing when the supporting engineer has less knowledge than me. It is also challenging to escalate the ticket in front of the customer I am installing for, so we have to maneuver a little to reach another engineer. Overall, Aruba's support is not as frustrating as before, although sometimes I feel the need to change the engineer.

I have used many other network solutions, such as Cisco and Ruckus.

Ruckus stands out in its ability to provide connectivity to users through its access points even when the controller is unavailable or cannot be reached. In contrast, if the controller goes down with Aruba or Cisco, the entire infrastructure will be affected, unless you switch to Mobility-based or virtual-based software.

One disadvantage of Aruba is their access point bracket, which is not standardized across all their devices, such as Cisco's brackets. This makes it difficult to identify and mount access points in different locations, as they may require different types of brackets based on the mounting method and physical location. Additionally, Aruba's console cable is not standardized across all models, unlike Cisco's console cable which can be used for switches, access points, and RJ4 devices. Furthermore, Aruba's console cable is not included in the box, which can make it challenging to access and control an access point through the serial port without having to find and purchase the specific cable required. In contrast, Cisco has a standardized console cable that can be used for all their devices.

The initial setup of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is simple.

To deploy Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we use various tools for server setup and generating heat maps, typically employing models 505 and 515. The 505 model is cost-effective yet powerful, supporting fixed Wi-Fi and over 100 concurrent users as well as handling 100 voice clients. Once we generate the heat maps and present the external version, we include customer pricing and other details for approval. Upon approval, we proceed with the deployment.

I create heat maps, which are becoming increasingly in demand these days. I use multiple models of devices from Cisco, Ruckus, and Aruba depending on the physical location. For example, if it's a warehouse with high ceilings, I use the Aruba 515, while for office areas, I use the 505. For outdoor locations, I use the 565 or 575. However, I haven't utilized Nest connectivity with any Cisco, Aruba, or Ruckus routers yet.

The price of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is less expensive than Ruckus and Cisco.

The maintenance of the solution is not difficult, I have been doing it for a long time.

Aruba's controller is an integrated system, whereas Cisco has separate devices and services that are not too integrated. Ruckus also has separate devices and services. When customers buy Cisco or Ruckus devices, they are buying all the devices together to get the best service. However, after the sale, nobody calls for support or assistance.

In the case of Aruba, if the controller goes down, the access points can be converted to a version of the software that allows them to work with a virtual controller. However, there are physical issues with Aruba, such as confusion with the access point bracket and console cable. Even if there are multiple console types, it would be fine as long as they are provided in the box.

I prefer Ruckus solutions, but it is expensive for customers.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN a seven out of ten.

Our company uses the solution to create networks for customers. We have more than 100 users across project management and service delivery. 

The solution is easy to use.

The solution provides good compatibility with Huawei access controllers. 

The customization options could be improved.

The pricing could be a bit lower. 

There are some minor bugs or errors when using the Huawei access controller. 

The solution should offer a laboratory view for emulations and simulations like Cisco or Huawei.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable so stability is rated an eight out of ten. 

The solution is very scalable compared to Cisco. Scalability is rated a seven out of ten. 

We rely on documentation so do not need technical support. 

We previously used Huawei AP but had some issues and budgetary concerns. 

The setup is not difficult. Installation time depends on the number of devices but generally takes two or three hours. 

We implement the solution for customers. They have the POI to provide ongoing support to employees. 

I recommend the solution and generally rate it a ten out of ten. 

Our clients are mostly K-12 education, community colleges, and local governments.

Aruba Wireless WAN is reliable, cost-effective, and easy to troubleshoot. Aruba is a leading solution provider on Gartner's Magic Quadrant in the wireless realm.

In a meshed environment, the handoff between access points is sometimes not smooth when users are mobile. For example, a connection is occasionally interrupted when a user takes their laptop from the gym to the cafeteria. 

Sometimes there's not a seamless handoff. Services are interrupted,  so you need to wait until you're found again and reconnect to the wireless. I call that a meshed network. This issue isn't unique to Aruba. It's a problem with Meraki or any of the other wireless vendors.

It could be several things. You might have too many users in a given location could create bandwidth issues, so it disconnects somebody quicker to allow someone else. There could also be physical barriers like steel-reinforced walls between different areas, so your signal is interrupted as you travel around a corner.

I have used Aruba for more than 12 years. 

Once Aruba Wireless is set up and configured correctly, you just walk away. That's what we like about it. We have some devices that are six or seven years old, which is rare in the wireless world because everything changes so quickly, but in some banks and municipalities, it just keeps working. 

Aruba has a product lineup that scales depending on the density and bandwidth you need. They have different models that scale for different capacities. You can get a low-end, less-expensive model for small businesses, or you can scale to high density, like exam rooms, computer labs, plants, and manufacturing floors where there are lots of machines that require a strong Wi-Fi signal. Aruba has a deep product lineup. 

We switched to Aruba when Hewlett-Packard Enterprise bought Aruba. We previously used Cisco, Meraki, and Hewlett-Packard. Aruba had a broader offering than some of the other solutions.  For instance, if you used Cisco, there was a missing middle area in terms of capacity where you had to jump from a low-end to a higher end with nothing in between. Meraki started on the low end, and they didn't have much on the high end. We found Aruba fit the entire range. 

Setting up Aruba stuff is straightforward. I can't say it installs itself, but it's effortless and only requires a couple of people. 

Aruba costs around $100 annually per access point, but that varies. It could be $125 or $85 depending on the buying plan. For instance, education will get a bigger discount than commercial.

With some vendors, the access point is not manageable anymore if you don't maintain the license. It's more or less a doorstop because you can't configure and control it. You can't troubleshoot it unless you maintain the license. That's not true with Aruba.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless LAN 10 out of 10 for the reasons I stated earlier. It's reliable, scalable, and low-maintenance. Planning is crucial. We insist on a walkthrough site survey with wireless survey equipment to first check the building where we will be implementing the wireless solution.

I've deployed in multiple healthcare environments and significant infrastructure in higher education. We have a variety of corporate environments, and they range anywhere from two APs to 2000 APs.

The solution has full integration with their NAC, and their ClearPass service. Specifically, with the wireless LAN, they have a layer 7 firewall at every AP. They have extensive firewall capabilities in the controller.

They have a capability called multi-zone, where you can terminate one AP to multiple controllers, and that's a unique thing for Aruba.

They offer per-user tunneling to a variety of endpoints.

The product needs some simplification of the configuration for their security tools or for SD-WAN, specifically. We call it SD-WAN. They need automation wizards and things like that, including macros.

There’s a bit of complexity in the initial setup.

I’ve used the solution for eight or nine years.

The solution’s stability is rock solid. It’s reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution is quite scalable. I know of an installation that has 55,000 APs. It’s extremely stable, and they had no problem going to that size.

Their tech support is excellent. Their tech is up there with any of the other major manufacturers.

We actually represent a variety. We have several in our portfolio of products, and Aruba and Cisco are the top two. Cisco and Meraki being the top of the Cisco brands.

Compared to those, Aruba has a more customer-friendly focus for its business model, not only on the support function but also on the acquisition and operation side. Where I mentioned the complexity before, Meraki has simplified its installation. That's something that if Aruba could accomplish what Meraki did with their simple installation plan, they would be top-notch in every area.

The initial setup is complex and not that intuitive.

We have a higher-end installation where there are a couple of thousand users, endpoints, and so on. With several thousand endpoints, a couple of thousand users, there are only two people on staff supporting it. It’s low-maintenance.

As a service model that's fully supported, that can be $30 a month with no capital outlay at all.

Extra costs depend on the model and the deployment. There are standard maintenance requirements for license maintenance and so on, for supportability. However, there are other models. For the smaller installations, anything of 128 APs or less, typically there are no additional costs. The licensing is incorporated as part of the base and a limited lifetime warranty covers the repair and replacement of the APs. We typically don't sell maintenance on those. They are just spare units, and the customers love them.

We are partners and resellers.

The solution is a mix of on-premises and cloud deployments.

I’d rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We have vertical markets and there's almost no real use case since it's all industry. Aruba is not really designed to be used in private households. We do have a few private customers. However, they have a very high demand on security. If they have a high demand on the performance, we definitely reach with Aruba however, the majority of our customers are industry related.

For one customer, what happened was they used to be on a different network on NPLS. That was very expensive and software-defined wide-area networking is a huge cost saving and much easier to be managed.

The solution can save money and can be easily implemented, depending on the environment.

It’s very stable and reliable.

There aren’t really any large improvements necessary. There are smaller improvements we request, however, they are communicated directly. We are not an end-customer. We use our direct channels.

The initial setup is complex.

I’ve been using Aruba since 2005.

The solution is very, very stable. It’s not buggy. It’s not glitchy. It doesn’t crash or freeze. It’s very reliable. The performance is great.

It is scalable in its limits. It's scalable. The main purpose is for bigger organizations - for public, schools, universities, or bigger industries. You could scale it down also to household usage or to high-demand private usage. You can do a lot with it.

We have implemented it twice on a university campus and there we have maybe 2,000 to 3000 users. We have industry users. I would say it could be anything between 3,000 and 10,000 users.

If it is a midsize company, they don't have planning for scaling expenditure. With the bigger companies, they plan to expand, however, then you always bump into Cisco. It’s the biggest competitor and the most popular one.

Customer service from HP is pretty good.

Positive

We didn’t really use a different solution. There wasn't much in the market in 2005. When we started, we started with wireless into the early and late nineties. By that time, you had very small island solutions. There were three coming market and a few other products that were controller-based, and almost nothing was controller based.

If you look at the competitors, they're almost all the same, they're just the different flavors and whatever you are used to it and how comfortable you feel with the product. We do WAN products with Aruba. We do WAN products with Fortinet as well. We do software-defined networking, the same as Aruba offers; however, there's not much difference between them.

We’ve also used Ruckus. We have a few customers in the carrier business, and Ruckus is primarily used in the carrier business. It's placed in the same league as Aruba.

In terms of the initial setup, it’s complex. It's not straightforward. The only straightforward item is the very instant access points; however, as soon as we’re working in a complex environment, then it takes a lot of knowledge. It takes good knowledge and could take a few days to implement.

I’d rate it a two out of five on a scale from one to five, where one is extremely difficult, and five is extremely easy.

We are a very small company. We normally use the IT department of our customers, and they are trained. They keep maintaining their own system. For smaller customers, we do the maintenance, and we also do the monitoring. We have partner companies. We swap our 24/7 services. If you offer 24-hour service, it takes about six to eight technicians to take care of the 24/7 services.

We don't monitor if the company or the customer has any ROI. It's quite difficult to answer what the ROI is, and what the return of investment is. Most customers don't even look at ROI on wireless.

The license is a one-time subscription. It's a one-time purchase, however, the update is a subscription.

It is unfortunately very expensive. The subscription, the software maintenance subscription, and even the one-off pricing are very high.

The license costs reflect the features. The more features you require, the more you have to pay.

We use different versions of Aruba.

We are Aruba partners. As a partner, of course, I will try to encourage other people to look at Aruba and implement Aruba. Some of the features are not unique however they are very highly developed, and the solution is highly sophisticated. It's the best of its breed. As a partner with different vendors, however, you have to look at the requirements, and you have to make a decision on the requirements.

I’d rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The main use case for this solution is in the education sector and public services.

Aruba Central seems to be a good way to go in cloud management. However, compared to Cisco Meraki, it's still very early days.

The product should improve Aruba Central.

I have been working on Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for five years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is very scalable. 

The initial setup is not difficult, but it has its limitations, with guest authentication. The deployment takes a couple of hours. It is very simple. However, it depends on how you do it. If you use the virtual controller, it is pretty easy. But it has got its limitations. If you do it by Aruba Central, it does take an awful amount of time.

With Aruba, you get what you pay for compared to the other vendors. Although Cisco is very expensive and their management is way better than Aruba Central. So, you have to consider what you are after. But price-wise, they are really good.

I can’t see Aruba helping me, but it does its job.

I would recommend this tool because it's stable, easy to deploy, and easy to manage. I would rate it nine out of ten. 

We are a system integrator, and we provide solutions to our customers. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is a solution that we offer to our customers. It provides wireless connectivity and has several features.

The main reasons our clients choose Aruba Networks are its strong server performance and competitive pricing. Additionally, Aruba's customer support is prompt and helpful. These are the main factors that influence our choice of Aruba Networks.

Aruba makes quite a lot of business for my company and its stability is quite good. There is no need to constantly maintain/support our customers.

The site survey tool is fantastic and saved us a lot of time in the early stage.

Configuration User Interface could be enhanced further to easy to understand what kind of effects will be.

We have been working with Aruba Networks for more than ten years.

Generally, there aren't many problems with stability. It was good. Sometimes there could be configuration issues caused by users when they try to update or check the system.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. Most of our clients are small to medium-sized businesses, and all are satisfied its scalability if they need to upgrade.

Aruba's customer support is prompt and helpful.

Positive

We previously used Fortinet and switched because our customer decided to use their solution.

The installation process was easy. Our engineers have extensive experience with Aruba Networks, so they are familiar with it and can handle any installation requirements.

Moreover, only two people are required for the maintenance of this solution. 

The deployment process depends on the customer's requirements. So, the deployment time may vary. Generally, the deployment process might take several days. Two people were enough for the deployment. 

I would rate the pricing model a three out of ten, with one being very cheap and ten being very expensive. We got a yearly license. 

The additional costs depend on the specific case and situation. There might be different costs.

We evaluated solutions from Cisco, Extreme, and Fortinet.

I would definitely recommend it.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The solution has many use cases, so we use it for warehouses, factories, and offices. Also, I've been using it in many different places.

Feature-wise, the solution's cloud is quite good despite being expensive.

The scalability can be improved.

The support can be improved, especially in India, since whenever I require support, it takes some time.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for two to three years. I am a partner for the solution.

I rate the scalability not more than seven to eight out of ten.

As of now, I think my deployments are not too big, and it is a maximum of 50 to 60 to date. So, it seems to be okay. I rate the scalability not more than six to seven out of ten.

I mostly deal with medium-sized businesses.

I rate the support not more than seven to eight out of ten. Support is not good.

Neutral

On a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate the setup an eight.

The time taken for the deployment is not much. So, it varies from site to site.

It may take not more than two to three days.

On a scale f one to ten, where one point is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the pricing as eight. Cloud licenses are quite expensive.

From the performance perspective, I'm happy with the solution. Also, from the technical side, it seems to be pretty good.

Considering the market in India, there are a lot of other options from which others can buy other than Aruba.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as an instant access point with a built in virtual controller. It's a wireless product.

No other wireless product has the same capabilities. With Aruba, users just need access points and do not need a controller. Access points can act as controllers. With 50 to 60 access points, we can use another Aruba product to help with management below 50 or 60 access points. If we have thousands of access points, at that point, we would need to go for a controller. 

The solution can scale.

It is stable.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Depending on the level of support you have (paid or standard), they are responsive. 

We'd like to have a bit more artificial intelligence incorporated into existing products. It would give them more market gain and make their product more robust. 

I've been using the solution for five to six years. 

The solution is quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

If you have a small setup, it's quite easy to manage. You don't need to have the big hardware in place. If you have a very large infrastructure setup you might need to have a traditional WiFi setup.

It is quite scalable. How easy it is to expand depends on what scaling you are doing. For example, if you are adding more hardware or more access points. A small setup is quite easy to manage as you don't have so much hardware. However, a bigger setup might require additional WiFi expansion.

You can scale it to a great extent. 

We're a small company. We have less than 50 users. That said, we also have clients that use the solution. 

We do not have plans to increase usage. 

We've used technical support. They are pretty good. However, it depends on if you have a standard or paid support. Paid support allows you to call directly. Standard support is slower, and you need to communicate via email. 

We also use Cisco. I'm familiar with Juniper as well. 

The initial setup isn't too difficult. You just need to have a bit of background knowledge. It's pretty straightforward. 

The deployment depends on if you will use Aruba Central, a centralized could management platform, which makes the deployment easier. If you don't use that, you do need to do everything from scratch. The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the size of the setup. The physical mounting is always something that takes time. For the configuration, if you have configuration planning already in place, it won't take too long. It might take a week to a month for a smaller setup of 50 access points. 

If you have all the test points mounted up and they have all been cabled towards POE switches, and they have the necessary firmware and everything in place, and you have also planning in place including what are the access IDs and what security measures will be taking place, then it will be quite fast to do it.

You only need one or two people to handle the initial setup.

I've not witnessed any ROI.

They have various types of licensing to choose from. They have licenses for security and firewalls, et cetera. There are different licenses for products and different types of features as well. 

Most licenses are subscription-based. There are a few perpetual licenses as well. 

I was looking at Juniper Mist and noted that this product has more AI. Aruba is not too evolved when it comes to AI. 

We're not necessarily on the latest version of the solution. We are due for an upgrade.

If someone has a smaller setup, Juniper may be a good option. However, with bigger setups and more unique features, Aruba is a good choice. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN benefited my company because it increased mobility significantly. After all, users don't need to search for LAN cables in the conference rooms.

Adoption was also relatively fast in terms of user onboarding.

What I like most about Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seamless integration from an endpoint perspective, for example, the core domain joined machine.

I also find the onboarding process for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN fantastic.

Another valuable feature of the product is authentication, as Aruba Networks Wireless WAN supports certificate-based authentication. It has remarkable security features, particularly in its machine and user authentication levels.

Device integration has room for improvement in Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. However, there has been a development where the access point can be deployed through cloud-based controllers. It can connect via the internet and doesn't require MPS connectivity, but that can be improved further.

I've been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for around six years.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN has good stability, so that's a nine out of ten for me.

The scalability of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. The only constraint is that the hardware comes with a fixed number of access point support, which becomes problematic if you have an on-premise deployment. Still, if you plan for the capacity in advance, then it's okay.

That could be a constraint from a large deployment when the access point only lasts two or three years. I don't want to put a high number or high capacity on the hardware on the first day, so scalability-wise, I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as five out of ten.

The technical support for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is good. That area is an eight out of ten.

Positive

I'd rate the initial setup for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

One of my Aruba Networks Wireless WAN deployments took two and a half months. Deploying the product entailed site-specific surveying, identifying access point location, how my controller will be set up on-premises, the IP schema to be utilized for the access point, IP allocation, and which access IDs I'm going to broadcast.

My team and I deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

I enjoyed almost fifty percent of the cost reduction from Aruba Networks Wireless WAN because it helped reduce the LAN infrastructure, such as switching hardware, LAN cables, etc. I no longer needed to deploy the switches and LAN cables for every point, which resulted in an almost fifty percent reduction in costs compared to the past cost computations.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is pretty cost-efficient than Cisco ISE when my company did a PO, but for a single-party tender, its pricing was on the higher side, so it depends. I rate the pricing for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as six out of ten.

I have experience with Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company has a 7200 series Aruba controller, almost five hundred access points, and Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

My company's existing database is deployed on-premises, including the controller, access point, and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager.

A team of five people, including myself, deployed Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. It was a process of putting and mounting access points. I also had two members in charge of configuring the switches while I configured the controller and the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager. Once access points become visible on the controller, my team will proceed to the template configuration deployment for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

The deployment team consisted of five L1s, three L2s, and me, so a total of nine. My unit deployed five hundred access points to six thousand end users. My team of eight takes care of administration.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN requires maintenance, for example, upgrading the controller or the Aruba ClearPass Policy Manager and then posture agent deployment for six thousand users. Any agent upgrade means deployment for the users as well.

I'd tell anyone looking into implementing Aruba Networks Wireless WAN that it's a good solution with many advantages, such as mobility, flexibility, and scalability, so I suggest using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN to enhance user experience.

My rating for Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is seven out of ten.

My role is similar to an integrator of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN.

My company is an Aruba Networks customer.