Cisco ACI Reviews

We use this product at a French hospital. It has helped to improve the data center and we would like to use it to change how we work with clients. 

It has reduced the time it takes to resolve problems and to understand what colleagues want from inside the company.

It simplifies the utilization of the network. 

The first time we used it, it was not stable, but now, a few years later, it's better. Cisco continues to work on this. If anything is not stable, tech helps us. 

It has very good scalability. 

Their technical support is very good. We had a problem and Cisco gave us the best engineer to resolve the issue. 

The initial setup was very complex. It's a new solution and it was very difficult to have an approach for it. With a lot of the help from a Cisco network engineer we had a good approach and are able to easily resolve any problem. 

We used our own company to deploy the network. 

It's expensive but the product is very good. I have never found another partner like Cisco with a solution like this and with great support.

We also looked at Juniper but their solution isn't stable so we didn't go with them. 

I would rate it a seven out of ten. It's a good product, and Cisco has a very good support team and very good network engineers. 

Of course I would recommend this product. We work with Cisco because they have many possibilities to work with very good support. 

We are putting ACI into replace the customer's legacy networks, so it's a migration project. 

We have been able to deploy new applications more efficiently and faster. 

We can support policy based on our intent, then that gets rendered into the policy that we will be using for Fabric.

It is more about resolving bugs early on in the code. Otherwise, as the product gets more mature and those bugs get discovered sometimes by the customer, then Cisco will resolve them.

It is pretty good once it is in, then up and running. The stability is fine. I haven't had many issues.

The product is scalable. You can scale east-west by adding in additional leaf switches. I haven't experienced any scale issues so far, which is good.

The technical support is good. We have Cisco SEs assigned to this project, and we have used them. They are pretty responsive. We have been happy with them. 

That decision would have been made by the customer internally, but they would do a LAN upgrade and an RFP. In this case, Cisco ACI came out as the winner.

It took quite a bit of time to get the design completed in advance. However, once the core ACI Fabric was in and migrated on, the initial setup is fairly easy. It's the same with any new deployment.

We are the supplier to the customer and the Cisco partner. We are actually doing the implementation, and the customer hired us to do it.

It saves time and resources.

The only real competitor to this product is VMware NSX.

We use this product in our services. At this moment, it performs very well.

• It is popular.
• It is simple.
• It works 100 percent of the time.

We would like to have faster services and problem monitoring for our customers.

It is very stable. It works 100 percent of the time. We don't have any problems at the moment.

The scalability is good. At the moment, we are using about 18 percent of the solution. In a few months, when we grow, we should be using more performance of the solution.

This depends on our customers and their change strategy.

The initial set up was complex. 

We are internally integrated. The integration was simple.

We also looked at Juniper and Fortinet.

We chose Cisco because we trust them. Cisco give us a very high level support and technical information.

I would recommend Cisco ACI. This solution is the best.

This solution is used in our data center.

This solution is faster than what we had previously.

The most valuable feature is the data center communication.

I would like to see more troubleshooting apps.

There should be more and better SNMP monitoring.

The stability of this solution is pretty good.

In terms of scalability, this solution is pretty good.

I was not involved in the process of selecting this solution. Rather, I performed the setup.

The initial setup of this solution is semi-difficult. There is a learning curve.

My advice to anybody implementing this solution is to jump in with both feet!

This biggest thing that I learned when using this solution is T-Panel.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

Our primary use for Cisco ACI is to separate networks that don't want to talk to each other except for set work.

We are setting up a whole dev environment. Some of us are purchasing separate hardware. We can optimize our existing hardware by realizing ACI.

Cisco ACI can separate networks with a buoy interface. That is the most valuable feature.

I wish that if I had to open up an additional tab, I wouldn't have to log in every single time. That would be a feature I would like.

For the licensing model of the system, I still have not gotten another update after eight months. It's telling me I'm not licensed even though I'm told I am by my reseller.

The stability of the solution looks good. The only roadblock is that it is a big change to Cisco networking.

The scalability of the solution I cannot rate at this time since I just started.

I haven't had to work with Cisco's tech support too much yet. I've been using professional services.

The setup was in the middle. It was straightforward as to what we were doing. Since ACI is a new technology, we had to make sure we didn't start too far apart. I didn't want to break anything. That made it complex.

We used two integrator reseller consultants for the deployment: SHI and BTA. Our experience with them so far is good. Next time, I would want to work with all of the professional services more together.

I wanted an easier way to manage segmentation. Cisco offered this and this is also what the resellers were showing me as well. That this was going to be the future of the system. 

Cisco was the main vendor that I chose. We were also looking at Juniper and HP, but they did not have a similar situation. It was kind of a no-brainer.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco ACI at eight.

If you purchase Cisco ACI, make sure you understand exactly how you're going to put it in because it's not going to be easy to work with.

Our primary use case is to interconnect both data centers in my corporation.

The biggest benefit has been that it has improved communication between my endpoints in the data center.

I would like to see better training. I don't have good training with this product. If I did, I probably would be able to solve all of the problems during the installations. 

It's very stable. 

Their technical support is fantastic. Whenever I have a problem, our partners at Cisco support answer quickly.

The initial setup was complex. If I didn't have my partner's support, I probably couldn't deploy Cisco ACI in my data center.

We implemented through a partner. I trust our partner, and I trust any of their recommendations and their deployments.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten. Not a ten because I don't have good training for this solution. I am now implementing Cisco ACI in the company. It's not 100% on the network. It's on 25% approx, more or less.

Our primary use case is for automating our data center. We are moving from a classic legacy data center to new data center, with Cisco UCS. The first implementation will have multiple implementations, then we will move ahead with a Multi-site implementation next year. 

We are still in the development phase.

It improves security and automation. It is stable and provides flexibility with different workloads. It is also more powerful from a security point of view.

The areas for improvement are automation and user-friendliness.

If I lose the connection from one side to the core, I can't use the other side to go to the core. I hope in the future, this will be fixed.

It is very stable.

I would rate the technical support as a nine out of ten.

The initial setup is complex, because we had to work with Cisco Professional Services to find the correct solution for our implementation.

We directly used Cisco Professional Services for our implementation. They are very professional.

We investigated different products and found that ACI can be used with different workloads (e.g., legacy permits) or with different systems, like Microsoft Hyper-V. Cisco ACI is more flexible as a product.

Pay attention to the implementation and interconnections between the data centers with this product. 

I am a technology consultant and my company is implementing this product for data center networking.

The most valuable feature is the throughput that it offers.

Training for this product is available from institutions but it is not available online where you can get users trained easily. It would be better if the training for our users was easier to get.

Cisco ACI should have better integration with a hypervisor such as VMware, Hyper-V, or KVM. This would give us a one-window solution for our networking, compute, and storage.

I have been working with Cisco ACI for about two years.

Our customers are very much satisfied with the stability. We do not have any issues with it.

It is scalable, although it depends on the design and the customer.

This is not a product for small-scale users. If we have customers with large data center requirements, we offer them Cisco ACI. For example, it is not for small enterprises without a lot of services running in their data center.

Scaling is easy because we can add, as required. While it depends on the design, scalability is not normally an issue.

We have received technical support when required and we are pretty satisfied with the support we get.

The initial setup is okay. It is not very complex, although I would not say it is very user-friendly because it is different from what we have been using. The best way to put it is that for me, it is new and it is straightforward.

A complete deployment, including the migration from their existing system, will take approximately two months.

Initially, we had Professional Services assist with hour deployment.

This is an expensive solution.

Overall, this is a good product but if it had better integration then I would rate it a full ten out of ten.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.