Aruba Remote Access Points Reviews

I use Aruba Remote Access Point for remote work.

We have that ability to extend the same networks we have on-site not only for remote work, but also to support users and testing purposes.

The possibility that you have the same network that we have on-site remotely, that's a great feature.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing. If they can be more competitive.

I´ve been using this solution for the last six years.

It is a very stable tool.

The scalability is good. I think all over the equipment, they scale very well.

The initial setup up was pretty easy.

Cost of hardware is similar to other vendors and licensing depends on which deployment model you intend to use. The last evaluation we performed indicated that cloud management and configuration licensing was a little bit more expensive, but was worth it due to gain in funcionality.

There was a public process for buying that equipment in which Cysco and other players were also considered. However, Aruba gained the part mostly due to the features and overall cost of the product.

We use Aruba Remote Access Points as a VPN.

Aruba Remote Access Points provide a level of protection for our IPs.

I used Aruba Remote Access Points within the last 12 months.

The stability of Aruba Remote Access Points is great.

I am impressed with the scalability of Aruba Remote Access Points.

The implementation of the solution is straightforward.

We have a team that is implementing the Aruba Remote Access Points.

The price of Aruba Remote Access Points could be better. It is a little expensive.

I rate the price of Aruba Remote Access Points a two out of five.

I rate Aruba Remote Access Points an eight out of ten.

We are a systems integrator in India where we work with multiple customers, understanding their requirements and proposing solutions.

Aruba Remote Access Points is deployed on a private cloud. There is a centralized controller and the APs are deployed at the remote location and have connectivity with the controller through the proprietary protocol from Aruba.

• It's easy to manage.
• The centralized authentication system makes it such that when you log in from a branch you get the same access as you get from any of the locations.
• It provides good Spectrum Analysis and troubleshooting.
• The distributed model and determining what Aruba is using are good. It provides the local internet break-out, directly from the AP.

It would help if the remote APs had some kind of SoHo environment with built-in firewall features. That way it could connect directly in a client-to-site type of environment, or a site-to-site VPN environment. That way users could have a complete office setup without coming to the private cloud. It could connect to the central site directly from the internet and get logged on to the controller.

I would also like to see a more open security consolidation. And the monitoring part should be in a single controller.

We have been working with wireless solutions for almost 10 years.

There is a major dependency on only once circuit reaching the controller. But the stability is there as long as the connectivity is up. If the connectivity goes down, only the stations that have already been established will work. New stations will not be connected. The gateway becomes the termination point for small offices and you can end up with something more reliable in comparison to the competitive vendors.

I have contacted Aruba for RMA support and version upgrades. They are good. The L-1 support is okay but L-2 and L-3 support are good.

The setup is straightforward. There's not much to it. The first level of configuration is key, but as soon as one center is up, it is very straightforward. You just upload the IP details and the LAN details and the APs start communicating.

The whole thing takes less than an hour. There is also the mounting and cabling that take time, but the configuration and testing of the scenarios hardly take half an hour.

Pricing depends on the OEM, but everyone goes for a perpetual license or annual-renewal licensing. Renewal licenses costs depend on the vendor. Some charge 100 percent renewal on subscription, like Cisco. They have a support model which is a percentage of the cost.

We work with multiple solutions. On a gateway level we work with FortiGate and Cisco ASA. In switching infrastructure we work with Juniper, Cisco, and HP. For cloud WiFi solutions, we work with Cisco Meraki.

It depends on the requirements, like if the customer needs a VPN solution from their FortiGate or a Cisco ASA. All of them have different fortes depending on the requirements of the customer. If it's a pure VPN or a client-to-site VPN, Fortinet works as a good solution with a combination of a symmetric and an asymmetric approach. Cisco is also good for more active VPNs using AnyConnect, which makes use of pre-authentication of remote devices before logging in. That is something that is unique to Cisco. And the F5 solution can bind the machine, a feature that nobody else offers.

With next-generation WiFi, everyone is talking about a hybrid scenario and the need to support cloud and controller-based access. Aruba is one of the products whose hardware supports both versions. But the hardware needs to be revamped when we compare the Meraki solution. Meraki's hardware architecture has the security built into the radio, whereas Aruba does not. So the features and configuration of Aruba are good, but there is a hardware revamp that needs to be developed.

I would rate Aruba Remote Access Points at eight out of 10. The cloud part is not as exciting as it is with Meraki.