Cisco Catalyst SD-WAN Reviews

We primarily use the solution for connectivity.

The connectivity is great.

The dashboard is excellent.

It's a scalable solution.

The product is stable. 

Technical support is very good. 

The solution is a bit complicated. They could work on simplifying the product. For example, doing configurations could be easier. 

The initial setup is tedious.

It was a bit expensive. They can improve their licensing model.

We'd like to see more monitoring features. 

They can improve in terms of their GUI. 

They can improve in terms of hardware.

I've been using the solution for five years. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The product is scalable. 

We have been satisfied with the technical support. They are great. There is always room for improvement, however, they're always resolving the issues

We also have experience with Meraki. The differences are licensing and pricing, however, the features are pretty much comparable.

The solution is difficult to set up. It's tedious. We'd like it to be easier. You really need to know a lot of stuff before initially trying to configure everything.

I'd rate the process a three out of five in terms of ease of use. 

It took us about two weeks to set up.

It's one of the more expensive solutions out there. I would rate it two out of five in terms of affordability. All you need to pay is the licensing fee. There are no extra costs. 

I'd rate the solution a six out of 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.

Some clients resist switching to new technology and they're also afraid of problems with compatibility and the layout of the NOC. The NOC must change because nowadays new things are happening, but I believe that the beauty of SD-WAN is the vEdge. So for the customers that are afraid of new technologies, we can install the vEdge without spending a lot of money. It's just a virtual machine over there. You can do it on Cisco CSR or even ISR.

So we deploy a new branch or similar branch with this technology and show them. Then they're not afraid of it. It's very easy. Now, vManage is coming. So we have the analytics team, we have all the GUI interfaces so you can create a policy and now deploy it anywhere or you can define it. I believe everything is very easy for the people who want to work with it. 

Technologies are not new. Just the name changes. VPN is the same as VRF, which is the same as Tenant, but the way they're playing with this technology is very different. The method of management is different. I believe that if I show clients what is happening with vManage— the interface, the analytics how you can integrate with them—they will be in love with that. Mostly what I have done is to define and elaborate for them the differences between two solutions, and point out the advantages like visibility and easy management. In the end, but they agree to move to SD-WAN

But I believe that most of the customers are still afraid of SD-WAN because they rely on old solutions. And the old solution was great and working for many years, so they are afraid of the new solution. With vEdge, we have a great way to attract them to make them feel comfortable upgrading everything into the Cisco SD-WAN.

The best feature is SD-WAN's automation capabilities. I believe many customers don't care whether we use VPN, or that use color or mGRE. When you're talking about management of, for example, a DMVPN solution or MDI solution, what is the option? So we have to go to a bug-by-bug report, like for example, NSRP to show these things. With vManage, we can see everything. We have a graph that we can click on and it helps us to remember better. 

Another good feature in the HCI is the integration of a health monitoring system. Other solutions like SDx are all the same. They have an integrated health monitoring system. So if you are deploying a data center, the options aren't really that great. But this integrated health system in HCI in vManage or even SD-WAN in the vManage is helping a lot. And also 

Customizing SD-WAN is very easy because you can define two colors. You can define two different operators. You can deploy a partial mesh, a full mesh, or hub-and-spoke totally differently. If you want to do this on a DMVPN solution, that's really hard. Also, things like Quality of Service in mGRE environment, in my opinion, are very hard because when you are dealing with mGRE, you have one tunnel at the hub and a different tunnel at the spoke. So what if I want to limit the traffic in my hub at the spoke? Because I have one tunnel, all the branches will be affected if I implement a limitation or restriction. So that's why we have advanced technology, like adaptive quality of service. With SD-WAN, the QoS is much easier because it is separate from the VPN.

The very beauty of SD-WAN is the separation of the plane. Right now, there are different planes. Compared to other solutions, the whole thing is totally changed. Rebound and vManage came into play as well as the new protocols like PnP. I started to convert most of the solutions from regular DMVPN into SD-WAN because we have the capability to define our VPN or define our color and customize by making a full or partial image. 

In the next release, Cisco should focus on simplifying the configuration of SD-WAN.  SD-WAN has a lot of room to grow. If you compare vEdge and something like Cisco CSR, you'll see the difference. Because vEdge is natively from Viptela, it is a little more complicated to set up an SD-WAN compared with an ISE device like CSR or ISR, or ISR 4000. You have now two different configuration spaces like iOS, and then some commands and styles are Viptela. So this is the thing that Cisco should work on. 

I've spent a lot of time on it. I started with version 17 when SD-WAN first came out. I continued using the product after Cisco acquired Viptela because I really love Cisco. I followed everything Cisco-related since I was 18 or 19. I got my CCNP in 2003 and my first CCA in 2011. So I spend all my time on Cisco systems. Right now, I have more than 32 certificates. I recently passed the CISSP. I also have more than 20 certificates that have expired, like Cisco Sales Expert, Cisco ASA, VPN, and several old things.

SD-WAN is 100 percent stable. If you use the suggested operating system, all the Cisco solutions are stable. According to the Gartner Magic Quadrant rating, I believe Cisco was No. 1 three years ago. Now it is No. 2 or 3, so I believe that they could improve more.
And many customers have used DMVPN or VPN solutions for many years, so those solutions are also extremely stable.

it is very easy to deploy the whole solution. I have a customer with VoIP and data. For most of the data, the hub and spoke are enough, but for IP telephony or collaboration like chatting or video conference, they need to have a connection between spokes —between branches together — but not for data. With SD-WAN it's very easy. 

I think vEdge is much easier to work with when you compare it to Cisco CSR. Most of the people I know prefer to use ZTP or Zero Touch Provisioning, but it depends on the type of customer. With some customers, ZTP maybe is not the best solution. They should know what's going on. And if you try to configure SD-WAN on a solution like ISR 4000 or CSR, and you compare the same thing on vEdge, you will see that the vEdge is very straightforward. I believe in CSR and ISR 4000. There are some glitches. It's possible that you will get a little bit confused, but you have followed the instruction. You have to do it very carefully. Then you make the connection vManage and everything is done.

I would rate Cisco SD-WAN seven out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for MPLS. We use it to have a connection to the telecom and we also have some radio networks that we use it for. We have two WAN ports - one is the MPLS one is the radio backbone.

The solution is excellent mainly for supporting our two WAN ports. We can dedicate which WAN is taking over and which one is available or not. It's great that we can also connect them to the internet. We can have a third line to connect to the internet providers for our internet solution. Everything is redundant and everything is working so far.

Overall, it's been working well for us.

The solution is great at aggregating the traffic and then sending it in one direction.

We have a good knowledge base in-house and good support in general and therefore we have continued to use it over the years.

The product can scale well.

The solution is very stable.

The solution basically does exactly what we need it to do. I can't recall finding a feature that was lacking for our purposes. We aren't actually using many of the features in general.

The solution could be a bit cheaper.

We've been using the solution for about three or four years at this point.

We've had absolutely no issues with the stability of the solution. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches. It's been quite good overall.

This is deployed in our headquarters. We have them around the country, and we have some large offices and have the solution at all of them. There are likely 1,000 or more users on the solution all over the country.

The same generation and the same product is the easiest to scale and we have them mostly on some of our sites. We have the needed redundancy. That said, I would question the scalability if you are dealing with multiple types or other versions or other products. It needs to be of the same generation to take advantage of the path of least resistance.

We never test it with other solutions, however, with Cisco and other vendors is there is not recommended.

We mainly use the solution directly and as-is. There is a lot of redundancy, so if something goes wrong, there's something to catch it. We don't really use too many features for SD-WAN. So far, we don't need anything added on, and we really don't need too much support from customer service.

We buy support, however, in the latest versions, we really haven't needed assistance. IN the past, we did have some issues and support was there to help us get replacements, for example. They make getting replacements easy.

They usually reply to us within 15 minutes or so, if we do reach out. I'd describe them as pretty responsive. 

The level of difficulty depends on the experience of the engineer. If they don't have as much experience, it may be difficult. However, those that know the product well don't find the setup process complex.

Mainly they're using a command-line interface for years and they don't ask for anything like a GUI, which would be on Windows or Linux civil server. Everybody enjoys command-line. We exchanged some other Cisco products and some other routers recently, which were working for 15 years and are still working. We just asked for new ones with new features, like more traffic, more throughput, et cetera. 

I don't recall any maintenance really being needed. It works 24/7 without much need for assistance.

We did have some outside help, although nothing was from Cisco directly. We have our contact support company, and also we have in-house knowledge. It's done together, using both teams.

It would always be nice if the solution was a bit cheaper, however, the value is good. The cost of ownership is worth it as the solution itself is quite good and lasts years.

As a bigger company, we'd prefer to have a brand and a solution that's reliable as opposed to trying to find the cheapest option and have sleepless nights, afraid it might fail.

To calculate what we buy and how much it costs us for all the services, it's still quite a lot of money.

You have to pay between 3000 and 10,000 euros, or something in that range. The core switches Nexus cost me between 10,000 and 20,000 euros. However, they work, and that's why we use them.

We are just a customer and end-user.

We have 1921 and 4331 router versions. 

Not only does Cisco have a reputation, but we also have a good experience for a number of years, - five, 10, 15, 20 even years of use. Some of them still working even after all of this time.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If it were more affordable, I might rate it higher.

We primarily work with branches of small businesses and enterprise-level organizations.

The solution works well in big environments. It's excellent for large enterprises with a high number of users.

The deployment is quite simple and straightforward.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has always been quite helpful. We are very happy with their level of service.

It's possible to scale the solution.

We've looked into the existing documentation and found it to be okay. It varies, however, they do offer documentation for their products.

Overall, I really like the whole technology.

For the most part, we don't really see any features that are lacking.

The actual configuration could use some work. The solution could add in some more automation elements to help with the process.

The solution needs to be more flexible around legacy devices.

The security should be improved on the solution. They need to make everything more secure.

Scalability could be easier to achieve if a company needs to expand.

The product could improve its pricing. They are very expensive.

I've been using the solution for six years at this point. It's been a while. We've been working with the solution over the last 12 months as well.

The solution is very, very reliable. It's quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good overall.

The scalability is okay. We largely deal with medium and large enterprises in Mexico. There are typically government or educational organizations.

We have been very, very happy with Cisco's technical support. They are extremely helpful and responsive. 

The implementation is pretty straightforward. Now it is easy as they've updated the process a bit. We can use icon managers, for example, and engineer basic modes of deployment.

The deployment process takes about three or four months. However, it depends on the number of sites or services. They vary and some types of data are very different.

The maintenance requirements vary. It depends on the project's maintenance. When the implementation is a government or education client our engineers and Cisco engineers work together. There are more business enterprise requirements. Typically you need two or three people, more or less, and it depends on the project.

The pricing is quite high. Cisco is not cheap.

We evaluated the Fortinet solution. We've chosen Cisco over Fortinet as we felt Cisco offered just a bit more in terms of options. It became our solution of choice.

We're a service provider and a Cisco Partner. We use Cisco technology in implementing the services.

I'm not sure or which version of the solution we are using. It's likely the latest, however, I'm not sure of the version number.

The solution is deployed both on-premises and on cloud and with Meraki and with Stellar.

I would recommend the solution.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

With my first client on Viptela were getting MPLS (MultiProtocol Label Service). That is a type of communications network that most of the major providers like Verizon offer. They were paying roughly $3,000 a month for each one of their 30 branches. That was giving them 10 megabits per second. We replaced that with the likes of Verizon Fios and Comcast. Each one of those business internet services cost about $200 apiece per month. The cost of the SD-WAN was maybe another $200. So for $600 a month, we replaced something that was costing them $3000 a month, and they were getting a minimum of about 50 megabits-per-second upload and download.  

Because our client uses two different ISPs at each location, the service is always up. The chances of Comcast going down at the same time that Verizon Files goes down is very, very small. The result is that the client's services are always up with much higher speeds and much lower costs. I think that those benefits are the ones that people are primarily interested in and that is what SD-WAN allowed us to achieve.  

I think that the SD-WAN had everything that my client was interested in in our first experience with it. I think that some of the solutions now are being integrated with other services. As an example, Fortinet has a product called FortiGuard. Included in the FortiGuard product is an SD-WAN. So some of these products are expanding capabilities so that they have more to offer in a single product.  

That would be a nice thing for Cisco. They could provide you your firewall and your SD-WAN solution together. Some people like that approach of nesting products or bundling because they have fewer vendors to deal with and immediate integration.  

I am sure as time goes on that the threat landscape will continue to change all the time. What was good encryption five years ago may not be such great encryption today. Because of that, I am sure that you have to constantly be looking at the threat landscape to see if you need to change anything. I do not know if I am close enough to that cutting edge of the problem to answer the question as to what Cisco's solution really needs. All I know is that my client is very happy with what they have got in the way of savings and functionality. That does not mean that there are not some other things that they would like to see. I just do not know what they are.  

There are a number of large companies that have bought out various SD-WAN vendors. If you looked at VMware, you will find that they also have an SD-WAN that they bought. There are several other companies that have bought SD-WAN services because the technology is so good and the cost benefit is so great that it is worthwhile for almost any company to implement it. They get the advantage of performance and the benefit that these systems never go down.  

As an example, one time locally there was an incident where two providers, CenturyLink and Level 3, went down at the same time. If you had CenturyLink and Level 3, your connection to the internet would have gone down for six or seven hours or whatever the overlap of those outages was. That would be an extreme case. There is another local ISP service called Cox, if you had CenturyLink and Cox, Cox did not go down. In that case, you would continue using your internet or your connections to your branches without ever experiencing an outage and it would just go through Cox. The reason is that Cox's infrastructure, their central office, their wiring, their co-ax cables, or fiber are completely separate from what CenturyLink uses. CenturyLink has got a completely separate central office and completely separate wire. So the chances of those two entities going down exactly at the same time is something that just never happens.  

I helped a client implement a solution called Viptela a while back. Cisco purchased Viptela in August of 2017 and that is what Cisco uses as thier main SD-WAN solution. That first encounter was probably about four years ago.  

The system worked extremely well from the beginning and there have been no issues with stability. In fact, stability is the reason why the solution was put in place.  

SD-WAN is certainly scalable. Huge companies use SD-WAN. Ever heard of Jiffy Lube? Ever heard of PNC Bank? Ever heard of Gap? (I do not know whether Gap surviving because of COVID) Those are just a couple of companies off the top of my head who are using SD-WAN solutions. It is largely scalable. I think that PNC Bank had something like 4,000 locations. It is very scalable.  

In the SD-WAN world, they have something called an orchestrator. On the orchestrator, you can see everything that is happening on your SD-WAN. So you can see if a particular carrier is going down, or if you are experiencing errors or whatever. You can see a complete picture of your entire wide area network in one pane of glass. In the old days before SD-WAN, if you had six carriers, you would have to go and look on six different carrier systems to find out what was going on. Even then, you were not necessarily getting all the information that you needed. SD-WAN is the greatest thing since sliced bread when it comes to having an overview of services.  

It is very widely adopted because it is better and cheaper and easier. You are seeing more companies looking for those solutions. Some of the telecom companies are offering SD-WAN. Some of the UCaaS (Unified Communications as a Service) companies are also promoting SD-WAN. One of the reasons that they are is to assure their clients that their telephone service will always be up.  

Any technical support we needed was great. Everything worked from day one so there was not a lot of need for those services.  

Our client was using a single service and they wanted a more reliable service, higher speed, and much lower price. We found that solution for them by integrating services. Instead of paying $3000 a month for each of 30 locations, they got it down to about $600 a month for each location. They switched because they got what they wanted.  

The initial setup and installation was pretty straight forward.  

The people from Viptela, at the time, assisted in the implementation. They were helpful in pushing along the implementation and it went smoothly.  

Depending upon the speed and depending upon the vendor, if you are getting SD-WAN as a service, it is probably something in the neighborhood of $100 to $200 a month per location. That is the cost of the SD-WAN. Then, of course, you need your business broadband connections. Business broadband with like 50 megs symmetrical or 100 megs symmetrical and may cost something like $100 a month or so. But at any rate, the services are not very expensive and they are widely available.  

The advice that I would give someone in the market for an SD-WAN is to look at Gartner and see what Gartner has to say. My information is recent in that the bank that I implemented it in does other business with me and they tell me that everything is working great. They have never had a problem. It is now four years later and it is probably worthwhile taking a look at what the competition is doing — including Cisco Meraki, which is another SD-WAN offering from Cisco. A lot of companies have implemented Cisco Meraki, and Cisco Meraki is a good solution. But there is also Versa which is a good SD-WAN solution. There are at least seven or eight very well-known companies that provide SD-WAN solutions.  

On a scale of one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate Cisco SD-WAN as a ten-out-of-ten. For my client, it was certainly a ten between the cost savings of 80% and a performance boost of 400% or so. It worked right from the beginning and saved them a ton of money.