Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

The software for Cisco SD-WAN is overkill because the box is more powerful than required. Cisco needs to replace it with a normal router because the current one is very advanced. They expect a stable internet connection but then try to get sophisticated devices to connect to any infrastructure. However, the infrastructure requires only SIM cards, so it's not that difficult. Implementing a router and a dual-SIM router would be sufficient, but Cisco makes it complicated.

I cannot speak to additional features, but we've heard that Cisco may add analytics to the SD-WAN.

We have been using this solution for about nine months, and it is deployed on-premises.

I have not heard any complaints about the stability. The problem with this solution is with the interface, not the equipment.

I can not speak to the scalability, but we used Cisco SD-WAN for a big gas station digitalization project. The gas station had to be connected to a government-owned company and then deployed to 5,500 locations, so it was a big project. I believe a government-owned company currently completes the maintenance of the 5,500 locations.

Our company was just in charge of implementation and installation. I am unsure how many technicians they have, but the maintenance response is so slow, which may mean that the technicians are not well educated or trained about the SD-WAN. Regarding deployment, it took one person about two to three days to connect, configure and do the ATP.

The technical support is very responsive, but they lack resident experts. So they have to divert the support to Singapore or Australia. They should have experts locally to provide support.

The deployment is complex, and Cisco makes everything complicated. It took about two to three days to deploy, and the engineers completed it.

The solution is costly compared to Aruba. You also have to pay if you want to implement extra features like a VPN.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. The Cisco brand is strong, and its connections to the government are also strong. Cisco has very good distribution and connections with universities, unlike other equipment manufacturers. In addition, they provide free seminars to government officials and receive allowances in return. Cisco does a great job managing its customers.

I believe Cisco and Palo Alto here in Jakarta and Indonesia are very strong compared to Aruba and Citrix. I last heard about Citrix when I worked with Nokia and Motorola ten years ago. Citrix only does password and computer synchronization, which is done from Singapore. Citrix also did not have local support about ten to 12 years ago.

Cisco has been around for quite a long time and gives a very good discount to system integrators if they try to sell their product. Although they have high published prices, the price for a distributor or reseller is very attractive with discounts sometimes as high as about 20% or 30%.

We use it for network services. We use them as edge network devices, edge network routers, and firewall routers.

We looked at an SD-WAN service and Cisco was a vendor that provided termination of those services. We bought it and it met the specification. Cisco Viptela solution met the specification for our network.

I would recommend better-integrated management. Some of the other vendors have moved to integrated management platforms. Better analytics and operational consoles with a deployment configuration that can work easily across the network. 

I have been using Cisco SD-WAN for over five years.

It is pretty good. We have been reasonably happy with it.

The scalability is fine. The issue has not been an issue of technology, it's been one of price. 

It was straightforward.

We had a vendor and it was not hard. We took a while to get the templates, but not that long. 

Cisco SD-WAN is a good product, but as I said earlier, it's not priced competitively. There is nothing wrong with the product, but it is not as good as what you can buy from other vendors for a lower price. It depends because it's bandwidth-based licensing. It depends on how much bandwidth you put through it. Other products on the market do not have any licensing for bandwidth and that is one of its cost issues. 

We will be migrating to a different vendor. I would rate Cisco SD-WAN a six on a scale of one to ten.

The purpose of this solution is mainly for migration from the LAN circuit to the internet using a secure edge SD-WAN for communication.

We are using the latest version of this solution. The solution is deployed on-premises and on the cloud.

This solution is mainly used in the pre-sales department, and then it's implemented by the implementation team.

The scalability is the most valuable feature.

The platform needs to be updated to be more stable and simple.

I have been using this solution for three years.

Sometimes it's a little buggy, so there needs to be some updates to make the solution more stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is generally useful.

Cisco SD-WAN was our company's first choice, but they also use Fortinet.

The solution is "plug and play," but sometimes it needs manual intervention. Maintenance depends on the customer's number of devices.

Deployment is mainly done in-house.

It's costly. The cost is high compared to competitors.

There are many different licenses and devices. There's the license and the device itself as hardware, and the license as software. It varies between the hardware and software, and they have many free licensing models. So, there isn't an exact price. There are also many discounts in the middle before they provide it to the customer.

I would rate this solution 7 out of 10. 

My advice is to identify your real needs for the solution. Do you really need SD-WAN or are you just following the trends?

This technology, in my experience, has a better adoption in companies where the concern for security in platform issues and data privacy is high. The reason for this is the data is protected with encryption systems, and that functionality is audited to meet certain standards.

This is in the context of SaaS because that is where I want to take customers. My option is the cloud with pay-per-use and better cost conditions. Also, companies with large IT departments and a high number of engineers have many reasons to use it.

This solution has allowed us to implement much more flexible payment models than the current ones. As such, we can better plan the budget that is needed for technology.

In addition to this, it has prompted us to see the cloud differently. We now look with more confidence since the orchestration is SaaS, which is why we do not see a compelling reason to avoid introducing more services in this format. We plan to stop investing in physical or virtual infrastructure, reducing our dependencies on data centers where we host services.

When we talk about SDN technologies, we are referring to user experience or customer experience. The complete solution is designed based on the services and the experience that we need our users to have with them.

This product offers the ability to utilize all of the access available in the market. Importantly, it does not affect the quality of the application. The best feature of this technology that is available to us is the ability to do better load-balancing. This is thanks to the deep inspection of the packets and of course, the forwarding of packets based on the application.

I would like to see features related to security compliance, including a view of compliance with standards. With this, I should be able to do an audit of my SD-WAN network.

In addition to having a network with an application-oriented intention, I would like to have a network that is oriented to security standards. I am only referring to the WAN network because with this, we can begin thinking about issues of virtualization. For example, access to SD-LAN where we can bring security policies with the user.

I have been working with Cisco Viptele for three years and more with the first version, Cisco IWAN.

Releases and updates/upgrades for the software in each component are not simple to configure.

The scalability is great when you have a mature template for configurations.

The Cisco Technical Assistance Center (TAC) service should be quicker to provide answers.

Positive

Prior to this, we used Cisco IWAN.

The initial setup is a little complex, especially for those with little experience in SaaS.

We used the Solution Support Partner Program (SSPP) from Cisco.

The ROI for this product in my organization is 18%.

This is not a cheap option but if you move from Capex to Opex, I expect you should have lower costs. I am talking specifically about Managed Services License Agreement (MSLA) model.

Fortinet is a solution that is a good option that is low-cost and much simpler. Meraki is another good choice for some customers.

In summary, this product is very strong when you need complex topologies to match the complexity of your services.

We use this solution to interconnect our branches with the headquarters and interconnect other countries with the hub.

Before we deployed SD-WAN, we used to have at least two links per branch but could only use one at a time. Now we are able to use all the links together.

The best feature about SD-WAN is the ability to consolidate the links to the branch and load-balance the traffic.

There should be more flexibility in the licensing. In the next release, I would like Cisco to add all the troubleshooting tools from Viptela to SD-WAN.

I've been using this solution for two years.

SD-WAN is very stable - once it's deployed, you can just forget about it, it runs by itself.

This solution is very scalable - the only requirement is to add the licenses for the devices being brought on board.

The initial setup was not very straightforward, but it gets easier the more deployments you complete.

We used an integrator and Cisco themselves.

When purchasing, there are so many features available that it's quite confusing deciding which to choose. And some of the devices force you to buy licenses you don't want. 

As far as deployment is concerned, either get Cisco Professional Services or an integrator to assist, as the person taking lead on deployment needs to have experience with the product. I'd give this product a score of seven out of ten.

Cisco SD-WAN is predominantly used for the zero-touch deployment, centralized dashboards, and live monitoring of tunnels and the links. It's also used for software image management. 

This solution is deployed on the cloud. 

One of the most valuable features is that they have multiple SD-WAN options: you have Meraki for simple management solutions, you have Viptela, and you have the option of having any type of WAN interfaces. Presently, you can also have a single combined solution for both WAN as well as for voice, so you can have a voice bundle as well. These are major unique points of this solution. 

This solution could be improved with a simpler implementation process and licensing model. 

As for additional features, maybe from a security perspective, it could have more features built into the SD-WAN itself. Rather than going and integrating Cisco with some other solutions, it could have one single SD-WAN solution with more advanced user security features. 

I have been working with this solution for 15-20 years. 

The stability and performance of Cisco SD-WAN are really good. It's a reliable solution. 

This solution is easy to scale. 

Cisco has multiple options: it has Meraki SD-WAN, which is a simplified version. It can be suitable for any retail or small- to medium-sized customers. For large customers, we have Viptela, which is for customers who need more control on their traffic. This solution is suitable for any type of customer. 

I have contacted technical support, but it wasn't specifically about SD-WAN. Cisco's tech support is wonderful—they have a good support team and they have a Customer Experience team as well, where they completely focus on the customer environment. There are dedicated resources available for large customers, and the Customer Experience team supports customers from the same cycle, as well as implementation, so in that way, it's really good. 

The implementation process is complex because there are multiple touchpoints and initial configurations that we need to do in order to get the setup up and running. For example, opening a lot of firewall ports. Overall, it has multiple components to manage—there are multiple controller components where we need to do the configurations to get it up and part of the architecture. 

Compared to a few other OEM solutions, it's a bit complicated because there are multiple controller elements. For example, vBond: I have to do some specific configuration to it and need to have a public IP for it to be part of the architecture. Then we have vManage and vSmart—three, four components are there which have to be managed, which is why we have to do specific configurations for those. All the control elements can talk to each other, which is why it's a bit time consuming. Even in the cloud, you have to make some changes to your existing setup so that it can be part of the SD-WAN architecture. 

We implement this solution for customers. We are a Global Gold partner of Cisco, so we consult, design, implement, and provide support to customers. 

We're an SSP as well, so we also offer maintenance services. We can provide standard maintenance services of supporting only the hardware, or if a customer asks for full managed services, we can deploy our engineers either on the customer side or remotely. We have a NOC facility, from which we can provide remote support. 

The pricing is fair, and it's on par with the market vendors. But based on the competition, Cisco could work on the pricing, go deep on discounts and provide more commercially viable solutions to customers. 

Some similar SD-WAN products from different vendors are Silver Peak, Steelhead Riverbed, Fortinet, VMware, and VeloCloud. Frankly, I've only been working with Cisco, but Silver Peak seems to be good too—I heard that they're doing well in the market. Otherwise, I know about these products and have seen how they work in webinars and trainings, but I haven't really worked on any products apart from Cisco. 

I rate Cisco SD-WAN a ten out of ten. 

To those considering implementation, my advice would be to understand your current infrastructure better. What exactly is being implemented, currently, and what use cases are you looking at? Having a thorough understanding of the existing infrastructure would really help to decide which option to go with: either the Meraki SD-WAN or Viptela. Have a thorough understanding of how your infrastructure currently is, connectivity, how the architecture is, which applications you use, and which use cases you're looking at. These things are helpful to know before choosing and implementing a Cisco solution. 

Initially, the primary use case was to lower costs, however, over time it has been to increase the availability of services according to the profile of the branches. 

Something very important is the security that this technology brings with it. We protect the data, we segment and give priority to what we need. In the same way, the possibility of being able to choose the underlay that I really need is great. Together with the type of service, the MPLS or Internet, is an advantage. In software-defined networks, the simplicity of doing things is its main characteristic.

It has allowed us to better understand the client's business. It breaks down a bit the traditional barriers of uptime and SLA and thus we are able to profile the branches in a better way.

Real-time traffic monitoring has become a fundamental tool for clients since it allows them to see what is happening in the moment and thus to be able to estimate trends or to project changes in a better and more assertive way.

The secure connection to the cloud is a gain when evaluating the traditional centralized internet links that generally exist in data centers.

Being able to see the traffic in real-time and know what application you are consuming, together with the possibility of taking your requirements directly from the cloud, has been useful.

Load balancing is a feature that allows us to take the best of our links and distribute the load intelligently, always with an eye on the end-customer experience.

Being able to prioritize, according to the applications, the exit and entrance of the traffic in a dynamic way, unlike the current quality of service that is rigid and static, is a tremendous advantage as it is done according to demands in real-time, so the customer experience is always the best.

It is transversal to all industries. What is important is to work on the costs of the solution.

On the technical side, manufacturer-independent solutions should be able to handle different topologies, simple or complex, and without having to invest more money in infrastructure or licensing.

What I also find should be improved is the possibility of really separating the software layer from the hardware layer since today the current offer is not well adopted by the service providers, which is why it does not reach the end customers. I understand this is an issue that directly affects the business goal of each manufacturer.

I've used the solution for five years.

The truth is that I started using an initial solution called IWAN, the intelligent network. It tried to take the best of current technologies and provide it in a network format. In my opinion, it did not achieve its goals.

It is not the cheapest solution on the market, however, without a doubt, it is one of the options that best handles complex topologies. Therefore there is a need to know more accurately what the client wants to do, what their applications are, what their flows are, and, after this consultation, define the best architecture and then choose the best manufacturer that obviously offers me a cost efficient option.

We evaluate the competition, however, within the same conditions, we wanted a dedicated equipment solution of bare metal, software, and hardware together plus the underlying layer.

This is a great solution.

The solution is primarily just for software-defined WAN or WAN edge solutions. We use it to connect to data centers.

All the features that they have in there have been great. The solution offers good quality of service, visibility, connectivity, and security. It's all of that stuff that makes it good. That is what's required.

Cisco is finding its footing in that area, and they're getting better.

For our team, the installation is pretty straightforward.

The solution can scale. We haven't had any issues doing so.

The quality could always continuously improve. For example, we've had stability concerns in the past.

Native connectivity into the major cloud providers would be ideal.

Often, the solution does require a specialized team to come in and assist with the initial setup.

Technical support could be more helpful and responsive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three or four years at this point. 

The solution could be more stable. There are issues that they've had to deal with.

The solution seems to be scalable so far. For all the opportunities we've been involved with, it's been good and we haven't hit a wall.

We do deal with technical support from time to time. Their tech support could be better. We are not 100% satisfied with the level of service they offer.

For us, the implementation is easy, as we are trained to handle it. The product usually requires somebody like us to come in there and help customers through this.

Deployment times vary depending on the client and the environment. It depends on how big, the opportunity, how many sites, how many branches, et cetera. All of that stuff comes into play.

We assist our clients with the implementation process.

I can't speak to the costs associated with the product. We get involved with just the installations, that's all.

We're a service partner. As implementors, we install all versions. Usually, however, when we get involved, it's always the latest version that we are installing.

I'd advise users to understand what they're getting. It's a good idea to probably do a POC to see it and make sure it meets all the requirements that the company is looking for before buying in completely.

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