Cisco ACI Reviews

It is an upgrade from our previous data center technology.

The solution has allowed us to redesign our data center environment into more of a zone-based network where we can section off areas. It definitely gives us a lot more security and control in our data center.

The most valuable feature is that we have centralized management and control of pretty much the entire data center and the architecture of it. It gives us a genuine single pane of glass to look through to manage all of our devices.

We're still in the process of doing the migration. We haven't migrated completely all of our applications out of our legacy into it yet. It was challenging at first, but getting easier now that we're starting to get into it.

I haven't been using the product long enough to really be looking for additional features as I haven't exhausted learning about the features that are available.

The stability seems great. It's stable so far and we haven't run into too many issues at all.

The scalability of the product seems great. It doesn't seem to have too many limitations if you want to scale out. We haven't run into any issues yet.

Technical support has been pretty good. I haven't worked with them too much with the ACI stuff, but some of my coworkers have and they said they've had good support experiences.

I wasn't there for the driving factor behind the switch because I started when it was already being implemented. However, the company was already using Cisco before implementing Cisco ACI. The previous environment was an older version of the data center — 9Ks and 5Ks. Migrating over to the more centralized management of the newer ACI just makes sense.

I wasn't there for the initial setup, so I can't really comment on the initial setup. The only thing I can say is that the setup seems to be an ongoing process.

We had a consultant company help us deploy and it was a good experience.

We're still in the process of implementing the product, so I don't know if I'd be able to tell about an actual ROI already or define what that is.

I don't think there were considerations of any other products when we went to upgrade as it was just an upgrade from the previous architecture.

In rating the product, I'd give it an eight out of ten. It is a pretty stable product and gives us really good central management structure.

It was challenging at first, but getting easier now that we're starting to get into it.

Our primary use case for Cisco ACI is to connect data center devices. 

It helps us to drive consistent ACI policies and operational best practices to our cloud instances.

The most valuable feature of Cisco ACI is that it is easy to manage. We can automate and it can be scripted. Virtual ACI is very good.

They should make it easier for the network people to do automated solutions. 

It is stable. We don't have any complaints.

The scalability of Cisco ACI is good so far.

I would give their technical support an eight out of ten.

We used Nexus 7000, 5000, and 2000 previously. The future is going to be on the data center.

The initial setup of the Cisco ACI platform is a little complex. The migration was a little tough in the beginning but once we got it, it wasn't so hard. 

We used a consultant for the deployment. Our experience with the consultant was good.

We always use Cisco. They are our main vendor. We didn't have any competition to compare. 

On a scale from 1-10, I would rate this product an eight. It's not 100% accurate yet.

The primary use case is for the data center. 

We're just starting to deploy it. We literally just bought it and we're getting ready to start. 

The fact that it's modern and that it's easy to configure are the two most valuable features. 

In terms of improvement, I would like to see some sort of way to baseline the system in a network-centric fashion. The way ACI works is that it is very application-centric but I think that a lot of people who I have spoken to that use it don't need all that application-centric focus. Cisco says you can do a network-centric approach but I want to do network-centric in my design and then have the system organize and set itself that way. That would be cool. I would like to see that. If you as the customer want a network-centric design, after you build that initial configuration and you go into the GUI for the first time and you decide which direction you want it to go in and you point it in a certain direction, then it builds out the infrastructure to accommodate that, that would be beautiful.

They are selling the system as application-centric. I think a lot of people, ourselves included, are not ready to approach it in that way. It's too many knobs to turn. It's great overall architecture, scalability-wise, has an easy configuration, central configuration, but there are too many knobs to turn.

The early versions of the code were buggy but now, they've gotten better. The code a year ago wasn't so great. Now, it's much cleaner and more stable. 

Scalability is definitely something that we are looking at and that's one of the attractive features of ACI for us. It's one configuration interface and if you want to add more interface you just buy more gear and plug it in. It's almost a plug and play solution. We just don't know how our business is going to grow and change over time. We can buy and implement something today and they can come and say that they are doing an acquisition or some sort of growth or new business venture and we need more capacity in the data center. With ACI, if you need more capacity you can just buy more and plug them in without needing to do anything else. All of the sudden that infrastructure is there for me to use, configure, and add stuff to.

We use professional services for the design configuration. 

Our investment reason was purely due to the depreciation of the existing infrastructure. We needed to get rid of the old infrastructure and we had to make a choice. We needed to decide if we were going to use 9000 or if we were going to switch to ACI. We ended up deciding to go both ways. We're going to do some stuff with the traditional 9000 and we're going to do other stuff inside ACI and so it's going to be a hybrid.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. Because it's a plug-and-play type of solution; you can take it out of the box, you can start just connecting wires, and then have it go from the infrastructure. Once the system is there then it becomes complicated. ACI is not simple by any stretch of the imagination, but the initial go-at-it is pretty straightforward, which is nice.

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

We're a Cisco shop so we weren't going to another avenue. We already have our partner for purchasing, all these relationships were established so it wasn't really much to choose in that regard. It was more of a design decision, 9000 or ACI. Originally, we said all ACI but then as we started really getting into the design and having deep conversations with our Cisco account team and the Advanced Services Team, they told us it makes sense to do some 9000 and leave some things as ACI. This is the route we're taking. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten. I would really love that network-centric philosophy of configuration to be a little bit easier to do and the learning curve is steep. Being somebody who has been working with traditional Cisco IOS this is not bad at all. This is a complete rewrite of everything that you ever thought of from the networking standpoint.

The advice I would give to someone considering this solution is that you have to look at your data center. You have to look at your infrastructure. Not only that but you also have to look at the operational and support teams that are going to support this thing because if you have people that are familiar with the traditional way of the doing Cisco and have never touched ACI, then you're going to have a huge learning curve for your operational team to ramp them up and get them educated. That's definitely a factor. 

The primary use case for ACI in our company is to do data center segmentation to move our network to a zero-trust model. 

This product improved the way our company functions by enabling us to establish our goal of moving to a zero-trust model. That's how Cisco ACI helps us the most.

The most valuable feature at this stage is that it can do segmentation without running everything through a firewall. You're able to do segmentation without having firewalls in the middle of all your connections. It is extendable to other data centers. You can extend your Layer 2 VLANs over Layer 3, using VXLAN.

I would like to see integration with Tetration. You should be able to use Tetration to manage your scripts and push into ACI without having to export, manually manipulate, script it, and then re-import back in ACI. It needs automation there.

It has been very stable. Upgrades have been very easy. We have no real complaints about the stability of the Cisco ACI platform.

The scalability is great. You get more capacity. You can extend it to another data center remotely. 

The technical support for this solution is great. We bought support and it's been going well. 

We knew we needed to switch to another solution because of security concerns. We needed a zero-trust model. 

For our migration approach, we did a very quick migration into it in a network-centric mode. We're starting to move into application-centered mode now. We're still in the migration period.

The initial setup was very complex. It's just a new technology platform. Nobody had training on it. Nobody knew what it was on my team. That makes it complex. 

It's a very complex system, as it should be. It's a new way of thinking about networking. Cisco ACI adds complexity. Cisco ACI is extremely complex. That's not necessarily a complaint, as much as it is a fact.

To deploy Cisco ACI, we used Advanced Services. Our experience with them was fifty-fifty. It's still so new in Cisco that it was difficult for them. We deployed Tetration at the same time and there were a lot of issues there. The engineer they put on the project was great. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate this product at a seven. It would be a lot higher, but it should have the ability to integrate with Tetration, as was marketed to us. It was a huge downfall for us when they decided not to do that right now. 

I advise anyone to get training before you implement Cisco ACI.

It has helped to improve our organization in the automation front. We integrated it with vCenter and Microsoft Hyper-V. 

Currently, we are not on the cloud. We have a private cloud deployment.

The most valuable features are the automation with the different systems for the software development and the ability to provision switches in hours rather than days.

Automation is the main criteria why we chose to go with this solution.

Cisco ACI needs to add more analytics and automation. 

It is stable but we have faced some problems with troubleshooting. 

There are no issues with scalability. We can easily scale. 

The solution's technical support is good. They help us with the operations. 

We decided to go with this product because the Cisco solution had hardware and software built-in. VMware is in the virtual world and so we went with the hardware and the software in the same box.

The initial set up was complex. We had to deploy 120 leads. Migrating from Legacy Cisco network to ACI was complex. 

We also looked at VMware. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco ACI an eight. The reason is that troubleshooting has been a concern. When there is a problem, the downtime increases. 

Cisco ACI is a good product. If you're looking for automation, you should go for it. 

We have purchased this solution for our network, but we have not deployed it yet.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the Call Manager.

Technical support needs improvement. I can get stuck with a rep who will just have me scan the logs to look for the problem. I think that technical support tickets should be escalated sooner. 

This solution is pretty stable.

I would rate the scalability about a ten.

Sometimes I get stuck with somebody from technical support who does not understand the problem. If they are having trouble then they need to get help with it more quickly.

We are still in the pre-deployment stage of this solution.

The only complaint that I have so far is in regards to technical support.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

I worked with this solution in my lab to prepare it for deployment.

I don't use it at the organizational level, but in my lab, it has helped me to visualize everything in one click.

This solution is easy to configure, and it is done in an object-oriented manner.

I would like to see a smoother transition from existing systems. The configuration from what we had earlier, compared to ACI, is completely different. 

The stability of this solution is ok.

Our deployment is very small, so I'm not the right guy to speak with about scalability.

I have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup of this solution is not straightforward. We had our standard configuration running, but when we moved to ACI it was a completely different dimension. It was a slow migration, and you need to completely change the way you think about things. This took me about three months to completely understand.

We implemented the solution in-house. I went through the specifications and documentation and then handled it myself.

Things are moving towards the ACI model, so it is good to try out this next generation solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to implement a network overlay. We have a software-defined network in our data center.

Prior to ACI, a network upgrade or network change would be much more complex than it is now. Reducing complexity means that it is faster to make changes.

The most valuable feature is programmability, where we can manage a network via APIs and software, as opposed to having to manage complex hardware.

I would like to see a lot more integrations with the rest of the Cisco portfolio. I would like to have ACI embedded into HyperFlex, as an example.

This solution is very stable now, although it has had hiccups, for sure.

Most of the early struggles with ACI were not that it would go down. Rather, it was more the stability of the management platform, which has improved a lot over time.

This is a highly scalable solution, and we are running it in some really large environments. We have ACI installed in data centers that have more than one hundred leaps, which is thousands of servers.

Technical support for this solution is pretty good.

We've had a few incidents with environment reliability, but getting to the right engineering teams hasn't been difficult.

Our previous solution was legacy, three-tier networking. The market is changing, and software-defined networking is becoming the way to do business. Our network was the last piece to keep up, so it needed investment.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty complex.

The complexity comes about when you migrate from legacy networks into an ACI network. It's a complex process and there aren't tools that make it easy. usually, you're going to build ACI almost band new. Managing it is not complex, but building it is.

We handled the implementation in-house.

ROI would be hard to quantify, but it would come from a network with less downtime, less complexity in changes, and one that is easier to manage.

We evaluated solutions from Cisco, VMware, and HP. Cisco's solution, from a software perspective, may be slightly behind, but from a hardware perspective, it's the most scalable and best to support.

My advice to anybody researching this solution is that you have to test it. You can't take the stats on paper. Rather, you have to actually do the R&D to see it in a real environment. I think a lot of people make the mistake of looking at the features on paper, without actually testing the full functionality.

This is a really strong product. It has been complex, but most of their recent advancements have been in simplification.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.