Cisco ACI Reviews

Cisco ACI is used in the data center ecosystem. It's an eco-space solution. It's a DMB solution where you have the big hybrid data center you want to deploy on-premises, so the goal is to integrate all the virtual environments on feature environment servers with the data center.

What's most valuable in Cisco ACI is that it isn't like the legacy infrastructure where you have a lot of complexity in a TTR architecture.

What I like most about Cisco ACI is that you can control those devices from a single console, even if you have three hundred devices. You can manage the entire infrastructure from a single point of contact, so Cisco ACI is a time saver.

Another exclusive feature of Cisco ACI is its API interface that lets you enhance automation within the environment.

You can manage your entire data center from a single interface through Cisco ACI. If you want to upgrade three hundred devices in one click, you can do that, and within one hour, all three hundred devices will be upgraded.

I also like that Cisco keeps enhancing the product by adding different features, so there have been five major releases of Cisco ACI.

Another valuable feature of the solution is that it's more user-friendly than Aruba and Juniper.

An area for improvement in Cisco ACI is security, which Cisco needs to enhance in the solution. Though Cisco ACI uses a whitelist model, you must purchase an external product, such as a security firewall solution, to make whitelisting work, which the customer could find expensive.

For example, you're a customer who has Cisco ACI, and the solution doesn't have IP-based filtering, so as a customer, you've purchased Cisco ACI. However, you still need to buy another product for security, and some customers wouldn't like that. However, some customers prefer to go with Cisco ACI because of its scalability and flexibility versus other solutions such as Juniper and Aruba.

Technical support for Cisco ACI also needs improvement, particularly in product knowledge.

An additional feature I'd like to see in the next release of Cisco ACI is segment routing. For example, if you have an MPLS network, you can't directly integrate it with Cisco ACI at the moment. Suppose you have multiple data centers you want to connect to the MPLS private link through your service provider. In that case, you can't directly integrate that with Cisco ACI without an external device, which doesn't make sense to the customer. Cisco recently introduced the MPLS feature in Cisco ACI, but it's not up to the mark.

We've been involved with Cisco ACI since 2015, and have deployed the solution for more than thirty projects.

Cisco ACI used to be unstable, but after version 4.2, it's been very stable in the production environment.

Scalability-wise, Cisco ACI is a good solution because you can have more than five thousand servers in one ACI fabric. There's a lot of flexibility and scalability in Cisco ACI because you can even seamlessly integrate it with legacy infrastructure despite having a different data center.

Cisco support used to be good, but over time, many newbies were hired to provide technical support for Cisco ACI and other Cisco products, so the quality has decreased. The support provided before 2018 was good, but now, the Cisco technical support team has been struggling to give good support or provide expertise in some areas.

For example, if you raise an issue, you have to ask multiple engineers and make numerous escalations. Cisco ACI is a good product, but the support quality nowadays isn't up to the mark.

Cisco requires the customer to have some experience with the product before deployment, but novice technical support is brought in without sufficient training or without training the newbies for at least six months. The technical support team seems to just select cases and works on those without enough knowledge, so the customer experience is bad.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating Cisco support a three.

Some customers used Juniper and Aruba but went with Cisco ACI because the other two solutions weren't as user-friendly.

Anyone setting up Cisco ACI for the first time will see that it requires a lot of resources. Still, even if the initial setup is complicated, you can refer to the Cisco website regarding the steps you need to perform to complete the setup. Cisco explained the process well, and you can even take a workshop on it.

From a configuration point of view, I found Cisco ACI complex because it isn't easy to create the policy. Unless you have a good networking background, you won't be able to set up Cisco ACI easily.

For example, if your organization doesn't have experienced engineers, Cisco provides a two-day workshop for your engineers. Cisco also offers many free tools in the market to help you set up your account.

On a scale of one to five, I'm rating the initial setup for Cisco ACI as four.

Pricing for Cisco ACI could be expensive if you're not a gold partner. If you're a gold partner, you'll get reasonable pricing, but to become a gold partner, you must cross several layers. For example, at least twenty engineers within your organization have to be certified, with each certification priced at £2,000 minimum, so this would make some companies think twice about the product. If you're going for Aruba and Juniper products, on the other hand, you can quickly get the partner status, and you can start selling the product.

As a gold partner, you can get up to seventy percent discount on Cisco ACI, for example, while an ordinary partner gets ten percent off.

Cisco ACI is expensive for both customers and partners, but I'm rating pricing for the product as four out of five because even if the price is costly, you get a lot of benefits from the product.

Cisco ACI isn't the best, price-wise, but it's still a good solution. If you're in a small organization, you may be unable to afford it. Cisco ACI is best for enterprises but not SMBs because Cisco ACI and its required resources are expensive.

I've evaluated VMware NSX, but it can't compete with Cisco ACI. Cisco ACI is a hardware-level product that can support terabytes and petabytes of data at the same time, which VMware NSX can't do because it's a virtual environment with limited throughput and scalability.

If you're planning to apply terabytes of traffic in VMware NSX, you'll find it hard, and the solution will eventually choke after some time.

Cisco ACI has the best scalability. Cisco also has categories where particular hardware will be recommended based on your requirement, for example, whether you have petabytes or terabytes of data.

My company is mainly involved with three products, Cisco ACI, Cisco FTD, and Cisco WebDialer.

My company is a reseller/integrator for Cisco ACI.

I'd rate Cisco ACI as nine out of ten.

In the last nine months, I have done two projects with Cisco ACI. Both of them were banking systems. I'm capable of selling, installing, and deploying Cisco ACI, so I know all the licenses and prices as well as how to compare the prices and establish a pre-sales team and also doing the deployment and supporting the ACA solutions. 

The most important aspect of Cisco ACI in my opinion is the ease of management. Other solutions, like traditional solutions and pricier solutions—or even fabric and PAT—you have to do many configurations on a box-to-box basis, With Cisco ACI, you go on the AP and do some "next, next finish" installer. Everything is done without having to know about the VXLAN, AVPN, MP-BGP, or ISI. In previous solutions, you had to know all these things and deploy all of them yourself, so you needed a deep knowledge of VRF and all the other BGP things. You would have to remember everything about the detail configuration, but now we just do some clicks and everything is there.

The other benefit to me is the white-listing solution that the ACI can handle. It's important to have a good knowledge of IPS and DDoS things. I always prefer to stop traffic mid-way instead of putting everything on the firewall and blocking it on the firewall. In my opinion, a firewall has very limited resources and it is possible to run out of resources easily with a simple attack, like HPing. But when you do white-listing, you just greenlight your needed traffic, not all the traffic. So this is a very big difference. And also of course, nowadays everyone is talking about the ACR tool Heat that allows customized configuration to style. These are the major things and some other things like very low latency and few hops. 

Before version 5, you could manage your firewall or load balancer from the AP. It was very basic and now they removed the whole features in the new version, so you cannot manage your load balance or firewall from your AP on L2, L4, and L7 services. They can improve this because it's a little bit hard to send traffic with PBR or EPB to the box. They're returning back. That's one area where they could improve.

I've mostly worked with Cisco solutions in the last 15 or 17 years. I do everything from deploying enterprise solutions and developing data centers to building cloud applications with Cisco ACI or data solutions at the center, like MPP, GPU, AVPN, and VXLANs. Security-wise, I started with ASA and IPS then upgraded to Five Power and Snort. I also have a lot of experience with Ice and Identity solutions as well as ESA and WSA.

I believe that Cisco ACI is highly scalable. Anytime that you want to add bandwidth, you just need to add a spine and anytime you need more ports, you just need to add that. And the very cool feature is the different typology that ACI can support now. Before that, it was a stretch, especially the typology. Nowadays, everyone is talking about the IPN and the multi-part.

For bigger operations with different data centers in different locations, you can deploy multi-site and it also offers some support remotely. I've never deployed it, but you can use a virtual peak that gives this and also enables a multi-tier. That's also very helpful with customers that don't want to spend a lot of money for the cable or transceivers. And the hardware is massive. I really love the hardware. The MTBF is huge. Everything is stable.

I was also in Malaysia for many years as a CTO at a company before COVID and was a Cisco partner. So I know how to create tickets. I've experienced how they respond and escalate tickets. I was the business owner and promised stability and availability to my customers. I asked and they opened a ticket for me, and I'd give it to my friend. I only needed to interact with Cisco techs very few times. But for licensing things and hosting, I use support all the time.

In most cases, you just plug in the cables and it even has the cable cave, a guard system, attached spine to spine. In my opinion, the initial part that involves creating the overlay is very easy compared to an MP-BGP or VPN solution. So in that case, it definitely takes hours, especially if the site that you are working with ACI is multi-tenant. If it's multi-tenant and you are not using ACI or an MPG EVP solution, then it's hard for you to take care of the road fillers. And a BGP road target must be very accurate, but here you don't deal with anything. This is also very great about ACI, which takes less networking. There's no port. Everything is tied to the object. So that's very easy. I believe that it is exactly the same environment and same thing that we face with the Cisco Blade system. You can create a foreign device and attach it to any server on the Blade and everything works fine. 

I would rate Cisco ACI nine out of 10. I'm always trying to push customers to use Cisco solutions. When I'm talking to my clients or anyone else who is thinking about using Cisco solutions, I always say 10 out of 10, but I believe that there is some space for improvement. 

Primarily, what we like is the ability to do micro-segmentation. We have many different application endpoints, and one of the key use cases for us was to be able to classify the application endpoints into arbitrary buckets of different silos. We need to be able to ensure that different endpoints will go into, let's say, a production silo, versus a development silo, versus a test silo. That was one of the use cases.

The function above and beyond that is that you get things like automation as part of the SDN framework. Therefore, you get the data center overlay that is built automatically and provisioned automatically from the automation capability that's built-in.

The solution has all of the baseline functionalities for any sort of SDN capability. 

The stability is quite good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

One of the areas that need work is feature flexibility. If you want to do things like routing policies it's not cookie-cutter, however, you want to customize routing policies. It becomes a little bit more constrained due to the feature set, the routing policy feature set within ACI, doesn't allow for you to get very customized when it comes to, let's say, failover type scenarios. However, that's just an artifact of the product maturity. It's going to take some time before the product becomes mature and they have the ability to have more customized features enabled. At version 4.0, these features were not yet available. We ended up having to basically export the routing functionality, the more advanced routing functions, outside of ACI and just put it into the routing infrastructure around it.

The initial setup is not intuitive.

Technical support needs to be more helpful. It's rare that you get a knowledgeable person.

It would be nice for them to provide visibility at a cheaper price point. Visibility is something that everybody wants to achieve with their workload. One of the benefits of SDN is supposedly the ability to collect all that telemetry and correlate it to something that is actionable and meaningful. That's a key requirement, however, the bar is so high in terms of costs. In our environment, we opted out of it as it's so expensive, however, it would be nice, as, if you don't have visibility, then how do you properly segment your workload? The minute you start segmenting, you kind of cut off workload communication. If your goal is micro-segmentation and putting your workload into arbitrary silos, and if you don't have the visibility, then it will be very difficult to achieve. Therefore, if you don't have visibility and you want micro-segmentation and you don't want to pay, then ACI is not your solution.

I've been using the solution for two years at this point.

The solution is stable. We don't have issues with it crashing or freezing.

While supposedly it's scalable, the program is not. I don't have any data point that I can provide for scalability within ACI, as our environment is fairly small.

Technical support is hit or miss. Sometimes you can open a ticket and you will not have to escalate it three or four different times before you get somebody that is competent. I would say that's 85% of the time, however, the other 15% of the time you get lucky and you get somebody that knows what they're talking about.

I have some experience with VMware. I'd describe it as more intuitive and easier to configure, however, it's a different solution as it's software-based as opposed to ACI which is hardware-based. 

The solution's initial setup is straightforward. It is not difficult. One other area that I would say is a negative is the way that they have their setup. It's not intuitive. It's very complicated and if you want to provision an interface or something like that and get that interface, it requires a bunch of steps that are very counter-intuitive. It's not user-friendly.

The pricing could be a bit cheaper.

If I compare ACI to a VMware NSX-T type solution, I don't know if there's a differentiator there compared to NSX. I will say that NSX has much higher numbers of differentiation, as they have visibility into the workload at the hypervisor. Having used ACI, we were looking at solution sets that will give us specific capabilities beyond that. The value of NSX is it will give you the visibility component.

The version that I was working on is a 40 version, however, the company is at a 50 version at this point.

If you are looking for a solution that will give you the ability to have really good visibility into your workload, how your workload performs and functions, ACI doesn't give you that level of granularity as compared to, for instance, a solution like VMware NSX. For them to provide visibility, you're going to have to spend a lot of money on Tetration, which is another solution that they try to force on you. If visibility is one of your key requirements, then you might want to rethink your data center SDN solution for ACI.

I'd rate the solution at a six out of ten.

We have two clusters, the first one of which I upgraded last week to version 4.6, with the main cluster being, at the moment, 4.2. 

We are talking about simple things with which we use the solution, such as employing Cisco firewalls for protecting or managing some of the data. 

I actually managed a huge and very complicated corporate network, it being separated in many locations. We have i1 solutions and outstations which are all connected to our network. My primary focus nowadays is on our communication, on the head office network. 

We have a perimeter firewall when it comes to the hub, which is responsible for outbound and inbound traffic, in respect of the public services for outbound customers and outbound internet traffic for the internal RJ customers.

Our current H firewall is Fortinet, being the 3000 D series. 

There is a separation into five Vdoms, or virtual domains, which themselves are separated into a data center, firewall, VBN, publishing services, and proxy as a proxy firewall.

Routing mythology comes into play. At the moment, we have our AS number and BGP configuration with many service providers for the purpose of maintaining high availability and redundancy. So too, the Fortinet firewall is working in high availability mode.

When it comes to security, we recently switched to Fortinet, as we feel it to be more customizable for our use case in RJ than the solution. We moved because Cisco scored lower than Fortinet. 

While we have seen a return on our investment in certain cases, we have, of late, faced issues on the Call Manager, which we have. 

We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the customers. 

This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything otherwise. 

Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product. 

It would be great if ACI would include the next generation firewall feature. 

I rate the solution as an eight out of ten, owing to the issue of the price and the complexity involved in its maintenance. 

I have been working with Cisco ACI for around five years. I have definitely worked with it in the past 12 months. 

The solution is definitely stable. 

The scalability is okay. 

Cisco technical support is great. 

In the past, I used Fortinet, Cisco ASA and Meraki. Currently, I use Cisco ASA and Fortinet. 

When it comes to security, we recently switched to Fortinet, as we feel it to be more customizable for our use case in RJ than the solution. We moved because Cisco scored lower than Fortinet.

When it comes to the installation, it is important to keep in mind that we are a corporate enterprise, which means that the complexity and customization are there. Many locations must be connected with each other. There is a need to apply many routing protocols, including EIGRB, static, and BGP. We have many protected areas in the backbone. 

In the middle are data center firewalls, which lie between the user and core switches. We also manage the wireless access. There is also Cisco Identity Service Engine, which manages access to the internet using authentication and posturing, based on the configured policies.

Much staff is needed for maintenance. This varies with the work payload. 

While we have seen a return on our investment in certain cases, we have, of late, faced issues on the Call Manager, which we have.

We have an on-premises, resistant license which we invested in. Out of nowhere, Cisco changed the licensing module to that of smart licensing, a perpetual license state, without offering any compensation to the the customers.

This made the license worthless and forced us to subscribe for smart licensing. This is the only way to continue receiving active support and upgrades from Cisco, not that anyone would say anything were I to stop. The licensing issue contributes to my decision to rate the solution as an eight out of ten. 

Cisco is much more expensive than other vendors, especially when it comes to the licensing. For half the cost, I can obtain the same service with another product.

We are talking about the cost of the renewal. 

Cisco solution is a perfect product and considered number one in the world in many parts.

Cisco ACI is a great product. It's nice to have in the company.

I am the network administrator in the enterprise company.

I rate Cisco ACI as an eight out of ten. 

We help customers obtain, renew, and upgrade. This is a multi-cloud software-defined data center. If a customer is in banking, we can separate and secure data centers for multiple sites.

I really like the usage of the application. It offers a good focus on applications and has a driven policy model. It is capable of automation and application-driven. Customers can focus on the applications, and this benefits the end customers.

We really like the GUI and the visibility we get in on the dashboards. You get real-time details on performance. 

The DevOps teams can integrate their own software in ACI. 

We can monitor which areas are working well. 

It can be used with Kubernetes.

We get a full holistic view of the ecosystem. 

Ideally, if it could be more aligned as a unit, it would be useful.

Compared to VMware, it needs more virtualization technologies. It cannot match that right now based on the hardware boxes that we use. It could be more virtualized. There is less flexibility as they have less virtualization.

The contract management could be better.

It needs to include log files.

The GUI could be better. The solution be more user-friendly.

We've seen a lot of trends in companies moving towards AI and cloud capabilities. If it could really focus on this area, it would continue to be a very good product. It would improve the cost-benefit of the product in the long run. They need to integrate with multiple cloud platforms. Better integration and compatibility across the board, in fact, would make it a better product.

I've used the solution for four to five years. The customers I work with use ACI.

I have found the stability to be good. I'd rate it nine out of ten. 

The scalability is pretty good. You should have two of the spines altogether. Then the leaves can expand when you want to have more bandwidth or more throughput requirement.

If you need more computing power or networking power in the data center, then you have to add the leaves. Of course, if you need more throughput power, it's a bit different. For example, if one spine has the power of 4GBs, the two spines, which are combined, give the power of 8GBs, if you want more throughput, for example, 50GBs, you just go and add a couple of spines to it to commit to that sort of power. 

We tend to work with medium to large organizations.

I'd rate the scalability seven out of ten.

Technical support has been good.

Positive

I haven't worked much with other solutions. I have worked with VMware NSX. It's similar, however, it is more flexible and is faster to set up.

The initial setup isn't too complex, depending on the user's background. If a person is comfortable with Cisco products, it won't be too hard. You do have to use the command line, which makes it a tedious task. That said, you have more advantages with configuration capabilities. 

I'd rate the process eight or nine out of ten in terms of ease of setup. For the most part, it takes five to six steps.

It doesn't take too long to set up the entire product. It's easier than the other areas of the Cisco portfolio. Cisco is also making deployments easier to handle in general. It might take a few days since it is software-defined. 

On a high level, if the customer has a lot of devices, it might take two to three hours, and then you need to integrate everything. It shouldn't take more than 30 minutes after that to deploy and get the devices integrated. It's just working on it and reviewing tasks, which takes some time. It's an ongoing process.

Cisco solutions are pretty pricy as you have to buy the AP controllers, leaves, spines, and hardware. I'd rate the pricing six out of ten in terms of affordability.

We are resellers and consultants. We provide insights to clients regarding this product. We don't use the solution ourselves; we help the customer use it and realize its value. We're Cisco partners. 

We don't use a specific version of the product. Typically, we use the latest when it comes out.

I'd recommend the solution for users that have a traditional setup and need a dashboard. Many banks have complex data centers. They'd benefit from moving to this solution.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

The pricing factor is an issue. It's also not as good as VMware as it is not as virtualized. However, the Cisco portfolio is quite strong.

I am an assistant vice president. My role involves product management, presales, and delivery of Cisco ACI. We have deployed the solution on-premises and in the cloud. We have different verticals, UIs, and data centers. We consolidate the data center on the basis of region. The data centers are in different regions such as Apex, Europe, and the U.S. Recently, we have MSO connected to Cisco Cloud.

Cisco ACI is an automation requirement where they want to consolidate data centers. We wanted a hybrid Oracle solution where services can be monitored and managed from the cloud and equally can be deployed on-premises. From an application perspective, fifty percent can be moved to the cloud and fifty percent of the on-premises applications cannot be moved due to application restraints.

We use all the features provided by Cisco ACI including orchestration to layer seven, service training, load enhancements, and firewalls.

There are many bug fixes required with Cisco ACI. Whenever there is an issue, we raise it to their tech support and wait for a response. In the meantime, we come up with a version upgrade or patch upgrade so that it can be fixed. One concern we found after 15 days of troubleshooting was a multicasting issue. For many of the applications, we were using multicasting.

It is challenging for people who don't understand the programming language, making it difficult to migrate. With technology, there are two verticals. One is hardware driven and the other is software driven. Most people in our domain understand networking, but they don't understand programming. When we migrate, some programming is required.

I recommend that rather than creating individual stacks we are given some UI-based solutions. This type of functionality would allow us to create a tenant then click on bridge two, and then create it on a VR. Currently, we are using some scripts with help from Postman for migrations from a traditional data center to the cloud.

Over the past six months, I am more interested in the cloud and IoT. From a security perspective, I would recommend Cisco comes up with solutions for ACI and a portal perspective. 

The Apex GUI needs improvement, so end users can follow the proper steps without having to go through the guide, giving more flexibility to the GUI. This will ensure that the user can easily build the configuration.

I have been using Cisco ACI for six years.

Early on, Cisco ACI was not stable. As it matures, it improves. Integration is the biggest challenge with this hybrid solution. From a security perspective, it wasn't stable.

The maintenance of Cisco ACI depends on the project. We use different delivery teams or supporting teams on a project-by-project basis. We handle the delivery and implementation and in the back end, there is a third team that maintains operations.

This solution is scalable. We are system integrators providing solutions to our customers. Approximately fifty percent of our customers are using ACI. 

With experience and after training, the initial setup is not easy. An individual who is going to implement this solution needs some support at the start. 

Deployment depends on how many workloads there are. We migrated more than 300 VMs with the help of tech support. It took three days to complete.

I would rate the ease of setup a three and a half out of five.

We had training and support from Cisco and live enrollment. It was helpful. We followed the initial implementation strategy. It depends on the application structure, what type of application, and how the applications are combined on-premises. The types of services and the type of payment, AD DNS, are also considerations together with security services and how the communication is going to happen between the app and the native services like AD DNS. 

This requires us to work with the application team and complete our homework. We used Excel on a per-application basis. Using Postman, we upload it in the format. Usually, it's a subnet IP schema.

Anyone looking to implement Cisco ACI should look into the cloud features. Ensure you work with the skills you understand, and try to understand some programming to make the job easier. 

I would rate this solution between a seven and an eight out of 10.

My company was one of the first to deploy Cisco ACI in Montreal six years ago. I work in a multinational company with offices worldwide, such as in Bangladesh and Honduras, apart from Montreal.

My company has data centers fully integrated with VMware and then uses Cisco ACI for server segmentation.

My company bought Cisco ACI for data center extension between two geographical spots, and it's working well and stable.

Cisco ACI, networking-wise, is amazing. It's made for networking—all networking features work. The solution is easy to extend with VXLAN, and you can have the same security features between the data centers if you wish. It's straightforward to move the VMware server from Montreal to another place, for example, from Toronto to the West Coast; it's not a problem.

I also like the newer version's central management and troubleshooting configuration, as it's not complicated.

I especially like the host-based routing feature of Cisco ACI because it's straightforward to do it on different data centers.

Another valuable feature of Cisco ACI is that its management controller works very well with no issues.

Cisco ACI, segmentation-wise, could be more flexible, which is an area for improvement. The solution could be improved in terms of macro or micro-segmentation for many access lists and contracts. The process becomes very messy in the end.

Cisco seems to have stopped working on the segmentation feature and just put in all the effort on Cisco Tetration, mainly to install the agent on the server rather than do it on Cisco ACI.

I'm slightly disappointed about Cisco ACI and ISE integration because Cisco stopped working on that, so if you have ISE, you can only integrate it with one cluster of Cisco ACI. On the segmentation side, Cisco ACI has many issues.

I've been using Cisco ACI for six years.

Cisco ACI is one hundred percent stable. My company's data centers never went down in six years of using the solution.

Cisco ACI is a very scalable solution, and you can always add another site to the existing architecture, either over the internet or with dark fiber. It has become an extension of the same data center.

Cisco ACI technical support is excellent. My company implemented the solution six years ago, particularly version three, and now it's on version 6. The older version had many issues, yet the support my company received was excellent.

I'd give the support team a ten out of ten.

Positive

The initial setup for Cisco ACI is very straightforward so I can give it a ten for the setup.

The deployment strategy for Cisco ACI depends on existing architecture. If you do it from scratch, it's much more manageable. Everything is easier to install versus migrating from your existing network, then it will be a little bit complicated.

Migrating is more complicated than deploying Cisco ACI from scratch because you have to do some tracking and move server by server or subnet by subnet from your existing network to your new environment. If the existing network has security rules, it's much more complicated to migrate to your new architecture, which would take time.

Cisco ACI costs depend on how many sites you have. One simple site with a simple installation, including two leaves, two spines, and some fibers, would cost $200,000 to $300,000 for the licenses.

The solution is a bit expensive, but it's a good investment if you want your data centers to work without interruption.

My company uses Cisco Tetration, Cisco Secure, and Cisco ACI for segmentation.

My advice to others looking into implementing Cisco ACI is that it depends on your company. The solution isn't so cheap. It's expensive, but it works, so it's an excellent investment from my point of view.

On the networking side, which is what Cisco ACI does in general, it's a ten out of ten, but on the segmentation part, particularly on security, it's a six out of ten.

My company has a partnership with Cisco but is not a reseller.

We have several customers who are using Cisco ACI. In my opinion, Cisco ACI is the most powerful solution from Cisco. It is a very strong solution and was recently developed by Cisco, especially because of the Cisco ACI fabric. 

Cisco ACI is a declarative model or object-based model that focuses on application-centric policies rather than traditional network validation. It uses spine-leaf topology. It eliminates the need for customers to spend time configuring their network, routing, and switching. Instead, they can simply initialize the fabric and design their application based on their policy. It's a pretty advanced solution and eliminates a lot of headaches.

The most useful feature in the ACI is a feature called Service Graph. Service Graph is a part of the ACI fabric and is used to redirect traffic through various network services, such as firewalls, without the need for complicated network configurations.

You simply create a policy and redirect the traffic to the firewall and then back to the ACI. So the Service Graph feature is the most powerful feature in the ACI and can be used to deploy the firewall as a service template for any type of traffic. You can direct the traffic to go through the firewall and then back to the ACI. I think it's the most important feature of the ACI.

I can recommend that Cisco improve its execution. But keep in mind that ACI is the most convenient solution for Cisco, and it is developing every day, adding new features.

Additionally, keep in mind that you can integrate the manager or CCI and manage your remote cluster and data center from the ACI dashboard, which is another possible feature in ACI.

I have only been using ACI for six months because I was promoted to central consultant last year. After my promotion, I started working on the ACI solution. We are using version 5.2. It's on-premises because our customer is in the banking sector and due to governmental restrictions, we cannot install any solutions over the cloud. All solutions, including SDR, ACI, and SDR, depend on the on-premises setup.

After version 5, it became a very stable product.

Scalability is another powerful feature of Cisco ACI. For example, if you need to add another endpoint, you don't need to redesign your network. You can simply add a switch or a leaf switch and you're good to go. If you need to increase the number of devices or add more bundles, you can add a spine switch or a backbone switch without any redesign because the fabric is initialized from zero. You can add or delete devices without the need for a complete redesign. So it's a very scalable solution, and scalability is the most powerful feature of Cisco ACI.

I did have one case where I needed a replacement for a switch, and they handled it perfectly.

I would tell you the pros and cons of using your legacy network versus ACI. Without ACI, you may encounter scalability issues as adding new devices and switches would require a redesign.

Additionally, there may be challenges with extending the layers between switches in the data center, such as sending traffic and addressing challenges.

Using ACI can provide benefits such as simplifying network management. Without ACI, each device and loop would need to be managed individually, but with ACI, the entire data center can be managed through a single dashboard, including VMware, firewalls, and more. ACI can also improve availability and billing.

ACI uses an object and policy model, which simplifies the configuration of routing and switching and enables application-to-application communication. Using ACI can eliminate legacy network issues and provide significant benefits, regardless of the customer size.

Overall, I would rate Cisco ACI a nine out of ten.