Aruba Networks Wireless WAN Reviews

My clients use it for the employees to log in to the Internet.

Once we install it, we don't get any complaints or adverse feedback from the client. They use it. It's seamless connectivity. And in case any failure happens, there is a long warranty period. So once we've got the access point replacement also done for one of the clients, that experience also was good.

There is room for improvement in the pricing, it's quite a premium. There are a few other brands that are coming up which are offering lower pricing. So maybe Aruba could think about being a more competitive price point.

I'm a system integrator. I've been selling it to my clients who use it in their offices.

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is very scalable. There are more than a thousand users in my client's organisation.

The initial setup is easy. If we need to deploy 10 to 15 devices, that can be set up in about half a day.

It is expensive. I would rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

I would highly recommend using the solution. Aruba is one of the best. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten 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.

Warehousing and manufacturing are the primary ones that I've been in, but we also do campuses, schools, and healthcare.

I believe their Adaptive Radio Management (ARM) in its current form provides the best automated management of transmit power and channel. It does a really good job of managing proper design and wireless environment.

It is a little bit cumbersome to configure. If you're designing a WLAN and you want to do and cover certain types of clients, you really have to know different settings and how they interact with one another. If they could automate that so that if you are designing for one type of equipment, you could, in essence, run a wizard. That would certainly save on a lot of calls to tech support.

I have been working with this solution for 10 years.

Its stability is good. I've not seen major failures.

It is absolutely scalable.

It is pretty straightforward. Setting up the environment is fairly straightforward, adding access points to the environment is fairly straightforward, and the upgrade process is relatively straightforward. It comes down to when you're doing something specific in the design for the client that you're trying to deal with. That's where it becomes a little bit more complex. You need to know where to go and look, but the standard setup is very straightforward.

That's really subject to the type of environment you're deploying. If you're doing a full controller model with 200 APs, the initial deployment could be 150 grand. Maintaining that or maintaining support for that per year could be something like 10 to 15 grand per year.

In the cloud sense, the cloud is by the number of APs. So, everything is readily available.

I would not hesitate to implement it. It is a good product. I would rate it a nine out of ten.

We use it for wireless access in our sales offices. It is a wireless access network.

It works well. It is reliable. 

We just upgraded it to 6G. The main reason why we chose Aruba is that we are an Aruba partner and we get significant discounts on Aruba.

The initial setup is straightforward and simple. 

It is scalable. 

It's providing us with the coverage that we need. The speed is good. Basically, you set it up and forget it, which is good.

We're not very sophisticated with it. We just use the wireless and it just does what we need it to.

It works. We don't look at it any deeper than that and don't find any features ar missing. 

We had one problem with one of our remote sites. We opened up a ticket and it turned out there was a problem with one of the end users' desktop. It needed to be patched and support was very good about it. They told us about it and we did it and it worked. It was nothing to do with the product itself, really. 

We've used the solution for ten years or so. 

The stability, in general, is good. We have problems from time to time; however, for those cases, most of the time, it's related to users. They might have patches that need to be installed or things like that.

It's generally reliable and there are no bugs or glitches. 

It meets our needs. We find it to be scalable. 

We have maybe 20 to 30 people using the solution at this time. 

We do not have plans to increase usage as we don't have any other locations for anything.

Tech support is efficient. If we have a problem, we open up a ticket and they help.

The solution is easy to set up. It is straightforward and simple. It's not overly complex. 

We have one person on staff that can deploy and maintain the product. They are a network admin. 

I wasn't involved in the process of looking into ROI, if that was even considered.

The pricing is good for us. As a partner, we get discounts. 

I don't have any information in regards to the exact costs we pay. 

We are resellers of Aruba. We don't do a lot with the wireless. We consume it. We don't sell it.

The solution works well and it does what we need it to do. 

It's a good product. Cloud management works very well. I would recommend cloud management to others any day.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten. 

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.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is deployed for communication, and we have about 13 sites controlled in a centralized location. We have next-step security authentication, and it supports end-user secure connectivity. The combination and mechanism of multiple servers are used to authenticate the user to connect to the network securely.

Our whole company uses this network, providing wireless connectivity on all sides. So this solution impacts our day-to-day tasks.

The most valuable feature is security, which is important to the company and end user. In addition, the solution's strong security mechanism and user-friendly web console are great. The software and hardware are excellent, and we can efficiently deploy and manage these devices.

Regarding additional features, the solution currently has a Windows update problem. As a result, the solution requires daily Windows updates and installations as well as launches of new patches. It also requires updates to the iOS firmware to support the day-to-day patches submitted by Windows.

Because we work out of Pakistan, we sometimes have to deploy this solution in areas with a lot of dust. So, it would be great if Aruba improves the environmental hardware materials to mitigate troubleshooting and decrease the amount of dust it accumulates.

We have been using this solution for seven years and recently deployed the latest version. It is deployed on a local network.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is scalable. We have a lot of users, most of whom are IT specialists. For example, we have four people required for maintenance in the IT department and two junior network engineers continuously controlling the solution.

The technical support for this product regarding the vendor is great. Our principal or local vendor is available to facilitate any issues that arise.

Before using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we had been working on Cisco and Awale, which are somewhat competitors of this solution. We also deployed Awale, which works fine, but Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is widely used in our company.

The initial setup was straightforward, and it took about two days to deploy. We used a third party to deploy the network and performed day-to-day tasks easily. There was no issue with installation, and deployment on a large scale was painless.

Regarding licensing costs, our procurement and finance departments are directly involved, and we evaluate the functionality of this product. Based on the market comparison, Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is cheaper than Cisco, and the web experience is great. As a result, its functionality and performance are practical.

If we were not using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, we would use Cisco. Cisco and Aruba have the same solution and provide a controller-based network and ISE. The functionality of both devices is the same, and the key difference is the vendor and branding. The dependability and scalability of both products are good too.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

We have used Aruba Networks Wireless WAN a lot for retail, manufacturing, and deployments on educational campuses. Most of the deployments I've done are enterprise-grade across multiple sites, utilizing the ClearPass solution so that all the enterprise sites are managed at one location. The use cases can vary.

The most valuable feature of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is centralized management capability. You don't have to have wireless LAN controllers at every location.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN could improve the solution availability. The selection of mounting hardware for the various radios is limited and poor. Often, you have to create and manufacture your own mounting hardware in certain situations. 

The specific information available for external dB gain antennas is virtually non-existent or poor. You have to do a lot of research to find out what external antennas are going to suit your environment. Aruba Networks Wireless WAN doesn't do a good job of helping, and that's one of their downfalls.

If you're using external antennas, you want to accomplish some gain by using external antennas. There's not a lot of information specific to Aruba Networks Wireless WAN, even on the Aruba platform, that provides you with solid information and recommendations about antennas that would best suit their solution.

I have been using Aruba Networks Wireless WAN for approximately 10 years.

Aruba Networks Wireless WAN stability is good. It has a low failure rate. I don't typically do service, but the failure rates are less than or equal to their largest competitors. It's a pretty stable environment.

I have found Aruba Networks Wireless WAN to be scalable. If you use either the ClearPass or the AirWave, it's very easy to scale.

I typically don't use technical support of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN. There's been a few instances where I've had to make a call, and they were fairly responsive.

The initial installation of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN is easy. The enterprise-level deployments are straightforward. 

The maintenance of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN depends on the size of the enterprise solution that you have deployed. However, typically, it's relatively easy, because if you use ClearPass or AirWave, you can have one person monitor an entire enterprise. It's not difficult.

Different sectors have their own set of ROI indicators that they follow. For example, retail has a set of ROIs and manufacturing and another different set than retail. You can make your own algorithms to determine our ROI, I typically don't focus on that.

The price of Aruba Networks Wireless WAN depends on how you buy it. From a pricing perspective, if you choose to buy Aruba Networks Wireless WAN as an MRC, it's dependent upon the radio and the solution that you choose what your MRC is. If you choose to buy it outright, they're competitive with their competitors, and they're probably four percent or five percent lower than their largest competitor.

I rate Aruba Networks Wireless WAN an eight 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.