We changed our name from IT Central Station: Here's why
Get our free report covering Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Arista, Cisco, and other competitors of Cisco Catalyst Switches. Updated: January 2022.
564,143 professionals have used our research since 2012.

Read reviews of Cisco Catalyst Switches alternatives and competitors

UC Deployment Engineer at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
When passing multicast video across the network, technicians don't have make changes
Pros and Cons
  • "Out-of-the-box, it works for our main use case. When passing multicast video across the network, our technicians don't have make any changes. Then, if we do need to make configuration changes for a custom scenario, the web interface is user intuitive so it's easy to use and change."
  • "An area for improvement would be creating a wizard that can do a lot of common stuff. Instead of having some manual configuration for common features, they may want to have a single wizard that could be put in place which would let you walk through creating multiple VLANs and different routes between VLANs in a wizard. Then, you wouldn't have to dig in so deep."

What is our primary use case?

The primary use case is for Pro AV products, so multicast video and multicast audio passing across an AV system. Audio video is getting very network-based, so we are using it for network transport and multiple VLAN communication.

How has it helped my organization?

We work with a large variety of project sizes. This solution has come in to help our company in the mid-project size range, where you have a customer who needs two or three switches but doesn't have the budget for an enterprise grade switch that is $10,000 to $20,000. The NETGEAR product line fits great in that medium project size where you need to have some of those enterprise capabilities, or a switch with a bit more power behind it, but you don't necessarily have a huge budget. At the same time, it can also scale up to those large projects. 

A few of our projects have used NETGEAR switches as a core for video walls where we do a lot of Crestron NVX, which is a multicast video transport. They have used the NETGEAR switch as a core to pass that traffic over to a video wall with multiple streams. In most of our projects, we'll do one to two switches. The flexibility with the M4300 is they have anything from a smaller 12 to 24 port switch up to a chassis based 96 port switch. In our large projects, we typically go for the chassis based switch, which has up to 96 ports. That covers everything we need. Normally, there are one to two switches in different projects.

We're using 10 Gigabit switching in a limited respect for interswitch communication. That is our primary use case for 10 Gigabit or larger connectivity where essentially we have multiple switches connected to each other and need to pass multicast video or audio from one switch to another. We do have a few products out there that are using that for multicast video transport. From a switch perspective, it's been very positive and stable. Some of the other products have had issues, but that's not related to NETGEAR. They are passing on the high bandwidth traffic without any issues.

What is most valuable?

I find the flexibility they offer to be the most valuable feature along with the wide range of features that they have for its price. 

Out-of-the-box, it works for our main use case. When passing multicast video across the network, our technicians don't have make any changes. Then, if we do need to make configuration changes for a custom scenario, the web interface is user intuitive so it's easy to use and change.

My experience with the High-Bandwith AV over IP functionality so far has been very positive. I haven't run into many issues with their switches passing a lot of high bandwidth communication across the switch. We have had projects that are pretty small and others with 80-plus devices. Regardless of the size, it works once setup and is stable too.

Expandability is an easy feature for these switches that works fairly well.

What needs improvement?

An area for improvement would be creating a wizard that can do a lot of common stuff. Instead of having some manual configuration for common features, they may want to have a single wizard that could be put in place which would let you walk through creating multiple VLANs and different routes between VLANs in a wizard. Then, you wouldn't have to dig in so deep. This would benefit a lot of our technicians, though if you have a lot of networking experience then the settings make a lot of sense. The very common settings are easy to use. However, some of the more advanced concepts are where it gets complicated, so a wizard for users would make those easier. Therefore, the only area they need to improve on is creating a wizard to help with some of the more advanced features.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been working with the M4300 Switch Series for about seven months. I started working on and testing them for our company last July.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

As long as the firmware is up-to-date on the latest version available, SDVoE installation performance has been very positive. We have run 4K video from Crestron NVX across these switches and haven't seen any strange latency or delay issues. It has been very stable once setup. We are starting to roll this out to some of our medium-sized projects, which has been a very positive experience. There have been no major issues that we've run into.

It is definitely important to get the switches up to the latest firmware that is available. We did run into some issues early on in older firmware patches with multicast video and audio. NETGEAR support identified the issue right away. It was fixed in the software upgrade and we've had very good success in the latest firmware. For stability, just make sure you're on the latest firmware, then you should be good.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Scalability is good and beneficial. They have their larger chassis based switch, which goes up to 96 ports where you can stack multiple of those other switches together.

In our smaller projects, we may have two to four displays. In some of our larger projects, e.g., video wall or some of our other locations, I've heard that we've had up to 40 to 50 different displays.

We now have 21 different offices spread out across the country with installation technicians at each site. Each region will have their own different projects. Most of the time the install techs (or design engineers) will handle the switch configuration locally. Therefore, a lot of people in our company get their hands into networking. We have another central resource and me who are more specialized. There is a group of us who are in the higher tier networking in case we run into projects that are more complicated. I've worked on 10 to 15 projects with NETGEAR switches, but I know our other offices have done more. We deal with NETGEAR switches quite a bit. It's a mix of installation technicians and design engineers. In my case, I'm a UC deployment engineer with a networking background and am working on some of the larger networking projects.

How are customer service and technical support?

NETGEAR support is really good. They have helped us a lot and respond quickly. In most cases, if you get too deep into switch configuration, it is better to factory reset it and start from scratch. If you've over configured the switch or configured something incorrectly, that's the first step NETGEAR support will have you do. Don't overthink the configuration because there are a lot of options that you can go into the switch. Most of what you need isn't in-depth configuration.

We haven't had a lot of support issues. Once the NETGEAR Switches go in, typically they run and work. We are not doing a lot of return service work.

How was the initial setup?

For the basic features, it's pretty straightforward to set up. Out-of-the-box, it just works for multicast video. There aren't any additional settings that have to be made from our technicians on it. For our primary use case, we have three different networks: video, audio, and control. It is super easy to set up different VLANs and make our configuration changes. It also has a lot of the features that an enterprise grey switch would have, but not at the cost of a Cisco or Juniper. Most of our technicians can walk through the basic setup without a lot of help, which is huge on our part. 

For the Pro AV side, you definitely don't need to be an IT expert. It helps to have some IT knowledge/background, but you don't need to be an expert. Since it meets the Pro AV primary use case right out-of-the-box, this makes it easy for our smaller projects. Then, for setting up a DHCP server, creating multiple VLANs, and the typical configuration, most technically adept individuals can walk through the simple setup in an hour or two. The documentation from NETGEAR is pretty good as well. In most of our cases, you don't need to be an IT expert. When you're getting into more of the advanced features, such as quality of service and connecting to customer networks, then you definitely need a little more network background. However, that will be with any product.

If you are turning on some advanced features related to quality of service or doing routing traffic between VLANs, it is a little confusing at points, specifically the multicast running with ping. Some of those advanced features is where it does get a bit confusing because there are so many different options. 

What about the implementation team?

From a network configuration standpoint, most of the time I work remotely. We have our technicians onsite installing the AV equipment, then I will connect through their PCs and go to the switch. Normally, when I'm pulled in for switch configuration projects, it is between one to three hours, depending on the complexity of the project. Smaller projects, where it's a single conference room or a couple conference rooms, that's one to two hours. When it's a larger switch or environment, typically that goes on for two to four hours. That's about half the time I normally spend with competing products.

The implementation strategy varies depending on the project. Since we have such a wide range of projects and they differ a lot, I've created a basic standard for us and we modify it from there. So our standard typically is that we have video transport on one subnet, audio transport on another subnet, and then normal communication over different devices on another. It's somewhat standardized but we do have to modify it to a certain extent.

What was our ROI?

When we spec NETGEAR projects, the time it takes to deploy it for a project is a lot less than projects where I would normally spec an Extreme Networks, Cisco Catalyst, or enterprise grade switch,. The configuration time where I'm involved in is typically about half compared to other vendors. 

Another return on investment are cases where we are in a bid and have to be competitive with other AV vendors. These switches give us an additional option and a little leg up because we get more features and capacity compared to if we went with a higher grade or enterprise grade switch. 

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

I would give the solution an eight point five (out of 10) for price to performance. The performance is really good. It fills in a hole that other vendors have had for a while. What you can do with this switch for the price, it is hard to match using another vendor.

From a price perspective, the solution comes in higher than a small business product from their competitors. The solution is a bit higher, but it's a fraction of the cost compared to an enterprise switch. For example, a Cisco Catalyst can run approximately $13,000, where their Small Business Series may run $800 on the Cisco side. With NETGEAR, it falls in around the $1,000 to $2,000 range for most of what we use it for. Essentially, at this price point, you're getting a lot of enterprise grade features (e.g., that you would on a Catalyst) on an M4300.

Comparing the NETGEAR switches to their competitors in the enterprise space, they are on the cost-effective side. A lot of the features that they have are enterprise-centric, depending on the switch you go for. Most switches are between $1,000 to $3,000. Some of the larger switches get bigger or more costly. These are not small business class costs, but they're in that lower mid-range cost-wise. However, the features that you get are hard to match for the price.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

It fits into the Pro AV space better than a lot of other competitors. The benefit to that is their ordering structure is super easy compared to their competitors. You have one or two SKUs and don't have to fight to ensure you have the correct licenses, extra pieces, or parts. From an ordering standpoint, this makes it super easy for our different project engineers.

We use a bunch of different vendors depending on customer preference and projects:

  • I do a lot of Cisco, whether it's the Small Business Series or Cisco Catalyst product line. 
  • I do a little with Extreme Networks and their different product lines from switching. 
  • I have done a bit with Dell EMC.

They are on par with other AV switch manufacturers, e.g., Pakedge, Cisco Small Business Series, and Extreme Networks. Though, they are closer in cost to Extreme Networks. They are more in the mid-range from an AV product price, maybe a bit higher. You can't beat their features compared to other vendors in that product range and capacity. AV specific only, they are mid-range price-wise.

Pros for NETGEAR Switches: 

  • The price point and features that they supply/provide in their product fall into an area that's typically missed a bit by other vendors, which is huge. 
  • The web UI is pretty intuitive.
  • It's pretty easy to set up, especially compared to some of the other vendors.

Cons for NETGEAR Switches: 

  • While they have all these features that you can configure, it is a double-edged sword. As you go deeper into the switch, there are so many options that it can become a bit confusing at times. For most of our projects, we don't deal too heavily with a multicast routing between switches or some of the advanced features. However, when you do get into that, that is where it gets a little confusing.
  • They're not quite as heavy in the enterprise side of things. If our customers are standardized upon a particular vendor, like Cisco, it doesn't leave us any room to negotiate, and say, "We want to bring this other vendor in." E.g., NETGEAR isn't used quite as often in enterprise spaces. Most enterprise is either Cisco or Juniper. 

What other advice do I have?

It's a good switch. The only recommendation that I would have is to put in a wizard for some of the more advanced features. Outside of that, I'm very happy with the product. It does fit in a hole that's typically been missed by a lot of switch vendors who are not targeting the Pro AV space, like NETGEAR is. I would rate the product between an eight point five and nine (out of 10).

We are working with NETGEAR to train our employees on the product as well as get a closer relationship with them. It is more than just buying the product. We are working with NETGEAR to help develop the product a bit as far as referring back to them what we've seen in the field. Then, they're helping to train some of our offices on how to use it.

Disclosure: PeerSpot contacted the reviewer to collect the review and to validate authenticity. The reviewer was referred by the vendor, but the review is not subject to editing or approval by the vendor.
Network Engineer at a government with 501-1,000 employees
Real User
Top 5Leaderboard
The unique ring topology protocol and pricing makes this a unique solution worthy of consideration
Pros and Cons
  • "The unique ring topology is actually a handy innovation."
  • "The price is low compared to the competition."
  • "The training and resources for learning are lacking."

What is our primary use case?

I have been a network engineer since the mid-nineties. The company I am in now has19 buildings and 50 plus switches, all Extreme. We use lots of gen one and gen twos — either the X460s or X690s — using the SummitStack. That is our standard variant of the Extreme Networks.  

We do have a couple of old 460s and a couple of old 480s, but we use the SummitStack for those versions instead of the Black Diamond.  

What is most valuable?

I have been using ExtremeSwitching for so long that it is really natural for me. I just use them. I guess if I had to pick something I really like, it would maybe be the ease of using their protocol. They use ring topology protocol. Using that protocol is somewhat unique to Extreme. It is actually really handy.  

What needs improvement?

I think Extreme can learn a few things from Cisco's approach. That is not to say that trying to become Cisco would be an improvement for Extreme. It is just that they might acknowledge the differences in the direction the solutions have taken and maybe learn from what Cisco does right. They are different even though they set out to accomplish the same thing.  

To call Extreme wrong for their approach would be like telling people in Great Britain that their drivers are bad because they drive on the left side of the road. They have been driving on that side of the road and that's what they chose to do. They are not going to just go and change it one day so they all drive on the right side of the road. It would be a pretty big undertaking in adjusting to it. I do not think that is going to improve Extreme's product to try and imitate Cisco. Making that kind of a major change is not something you should do just to be like another product and it would not be a way to improve what you do.  

I would say that they could learn from what Cisco does right. Extreme needs to improve on their training. They have been working on it, but they do not really have enough training classes and learning resources for users at this point. When we first put ExtremeSwitches in, it was very complex. I think that might have been because no one had any real experience with the product and people were more likely to be familiar with Cisco if they did have experience. The training was not up to speed.  

Extreme aught to take that into account and at least offer more resources to learn the products. If engineers are coming from the Cisco world, it is really like pulling your mind through the looking glass or driving on the other side of the road. It is just a totally different way of thinking. Cisco had a 12-year head start on the market. More people see switching from a Cisco perspective.  

Other than offering training, they are getting better. When I have a problem, I can at least look up a solution online. But with Extreme Switches, if you look online, you are just not going to get as much information and options as you do with a search for problems on Cisco. Everybody and their brother could tell you stuff about Cisco because they are familiar with it.  

In some way, it is a benefit to have less information. When there is not as much stuff out there, then you have less stuff to sort through. With Cisco there is so much you might have to determine where the reliable resources are. With Extreme the resources are more limited but sometimes that means that you will not get the answer you are looking for.  

For how long have I used the solution?

We have been using ExtremeSwitching for at least eight years.  

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

After the first year where we were having some stability issues, things came around. Now we are good for stability. If any part of what we have breaks, Extreme will just replace it.  

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

Extreme is quite scalable. We have a lot of buildings (19) a lot of switches (50+), and multiple fiber rings. I do not think we are limited in our ability to grow from that at all.  

Right now, there are only two of us doing the maintenance. Before I got sick earlier in the year, there was only one person on the maintenance. So now it is two people on the team, but working with Extreme is not the only thing that we do. We share the responsibility.  

I have no idea how we compare in size to other similar companies. We have 550 employees, and we are a 24/7 shop, like police and fire — or maybe public works. We have to be ready when we are needed.  

How are customer service and technical support?

Tech support, in my case, refers more to training than calling in tickets. When Extreme bought Enterasys, they had a bit of a rocky start with that merger. But Extreme's tech support has been okay. We have got a better integration partner now and that helps.  

When we first bought the Extreme product, they had all of two classes. That is it. They were both online. The two of the courses put together were only a week long. That was all the training you could possibly get for Extreme Network Switches at the time.  

Think of that compared to the kind of training and support you can get from HP and Cisco on their equipment before you go to implement their products. Extreme's programs did not even come close to covering everything. There were parts of the product, like their management platform, that they did not even mention even though it is a valuable part of the system.  

They have been improving on their training, but I do not know how far they have taken it at this point.  

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I have worked with both Cisco and Extreme at different times. It is almost like Alice in the Looking Glass when you compare Extreme to Cisco. Cisco uses iOS. Extreme uses xOS. These two solutions are so different. With Cisco, you configure by port — you assign everything to a port. With Extreme, you assign everything — all the ports — to a VLAN (Virtual Local Area Network). It is almost like they work in the opposite way of each other. You have to get used to adopting the mindset of the solution you are using and just do it their way.  

Extreme hardware is also less expensive than the Cisco equipment. That is a biggie in making the comparison.  

How was the initial setup?

I think the initial setup was complex. Really it was extremely complex.  

We did an RFP (Request for Proposal) and a vendor came in to put the product in. One of the problems we had that we obviously could not have known at the time was that the vendor did not necessarily know enough about how Extreme worked. It was a systems engineer from Extreme that implemented the RFP and even he did not know the product well. Then he left Extreme to go to another company. We were left holding the bag.  

For the first year, there were some glitches and gotchas that we kept running into. But after that year — and after we switched integrators — then we were in much better shape.  

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

All I can say about Extreme pricing is that it is much less expensive than Cisco and more expensive than HP. It is less expensive than Tesco by a mile. On pricing, it is going to beat most of the major competition.  

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

The products we buy are influenced by our company's business model. Everything we want to implement that is over 30-grand, we have to do an RFP for. So a lot of times to get under that threshold, we go with the lowest possible bidder just to get things done. We have bought stuff that I have never even seen before. I had never even heard of Tegile Arrays until we bought their products. I had never even heard of Extreme Networks until we bought their products either.  

What other advice do I have?

Advice that I would give to people considering switches is that I think Extreme products are pretty feature-rich and they are definitely worth considering alongside the competition. They just have to be aware they are not going to be working like they would with Cisco, which means fewer resources and potentially fewer candidates to work with the solution as engineers.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate ExtremeSwitching as an eight-out-of-ten.  

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Niranjan Oke
Project Delivery Manager at cineom broadcast ltd
Real User
Top 10
Easy to add ports, scale and setup, with good technical support
Pros and Cons
  • "For a customer, it is easy to configure and to add ports through the LAN the GUI."
  • "Customers do not prefer this to connect to multiple cities."

What is our primary use case?

We have designed a solution around it with our OEMs and we send it to our customers.

What is most valuable?

Currently, I am using the Dell S4048. It's a nice switch and it gives you good results in terms of a broadcast station connection.

The HSRP (Hot Standby Router Protocol) and the bandwidth allocation are very nice.  

For a customer, it is easy to configure and to add ports through the LAN the GUI.

What needs improvement?

Some features need improvements with stability.

Customers do not prefer this to connect to multiple cities. We use it for a single site or single office solution. If we had to use it as a multisite or a multicity solution we prefer to go with Cisco. 

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been dealing with Dell-Force10 Campus LAN for almost three and a half years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

There are some features that need stability, but most of the time they work fine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

They can easily be scaled. As you go to the card-based or the core type of switches you have less opportunity to scale because it becomes very costly.

How are customer service and technical support?

I have contacted technical support. They are very good.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

I am familiar with both Dell and Cisco switches.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is straightforward, and it's not at all complex.

What other advice do I have?

I have experience with LAN switches, but my experience has more to do with video-based data. There are fewer restrictions. There is a question of bandwidth when it comes to designing a solution with switches that deal with storage device communication and editing systems.

I have more to do with the broadcast IT solutions. My decisions are based on certified switches forwarded by OEMs. Our customers are not ready to accept anything that is not certified by OEM.  

As system integrators, we notify OEM of what solution we need to design and the number of machines or forwarding machines. We then quantify the things we want them to do. The OEM will confirm that we want to use this switch and whether it is certified or not.

Our customers are not ready to use Hybrid solutions. We mostly use on-premises solutions because bandwidth is an issue in India.

Customers don't have much to do with the configurations of the switch. The OEMs do the first level and advise the customers not to modify it. They are only allowed a few features or allowed to add some boards. They are not allowed to change the entire way the system functions because is a LAN scenario.

The system has to be running all of the time.

If you are using a corporate-type solution connected with routing and internet savvy applications, or a hybrid application, then I would not recommend using Dell. If you are using an on-premises application that is bandwidth-heavy and straightforward to setup then definitely Dell is a solution that can be used.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
Senior System Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 10
Fast and professional support but it is not reliable, and the stability needs improvement
Pros and Cons
  • "When it comes to data centers, Cisco Nexus is the best."
  • "The flexibility and configuration could be better."

What is our primary use case?

We use this solution mainly for the data center and or a yacht. They were used as core switches on a three-layer network.

They were the core level for a 90-meter yacht. They were connected with a fiber single-mode backbone.

What is most valuable?

When it comes to data centers, Cisco Nexus is the best.

What needs improvement?

The flexibility and configuration could be better. It needs to be improved.

It is not as reliable as Catalyst.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with Cisco Nexus for 15 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

My experience with the stability of Nexus was that there was a failure with the power supply. I had to replace the hardware component related to the power supply.

I have had fewer issues with stability when using Catalyst.

How are customer service and technical support?

Cisco support is always the same. It doesn't matter if you are looking for support for Wi-Fi, or any other product they offer, they will figure out the solution. 

The support is always the same, they are fast and professional, even if you don't have a valid service contract.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Using Nexus was a request from the customer and we installed it based on their request.

We would have preferred to install Catalyst. They are more flexible and the configuration of the high availability features are better than Nexus.

Nexus is the best solution for the data center and not as a solution for a moving environment, such as a yacht, that would have issues related to the power supply. This is why Catalyst would have been better than Nexus.

With my experience with Catalyst, I would rate it a nine out of ten.

How was the initial setup?

The installation was not as easy as it was with Catalyst. The configuration was more difficult.

They have a similar CLI, but different components and features.

We need a team of four to maintain this solution. The team consists of one manager, two technicians, and one installer.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

We purchased this solution as per the client's request. We completed the installation with their requested license and features.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did not evaluate other solutions for our client.  

We didn't spend time researching the best solution for the client. They had a particular method and requested Cisco Nexus specifically.

What other advice do I have?

My recommendation would be with Cisco Catalyst. I prefer Catalyst over Nexus because of its flexibility and reliability.

I only used Nexus one time and don't have a good comparison. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Integrator
Flag as inappropriate
Network Administrator at a healthcare company with 201-500 employees
Real User
Top 5
Stable, easy to set up, and the technical support is good
Pros and Cons
  • "This is a very reliable solution."
  • "I would like to see some kind of packet tracer where people can study how the switch is operating."

What is our primary use case?

We are in the healthcare industry. Most of our switches are modular because we need a lot of ports in one location.

What is most valuable?

The most valuable feature is reliability.

What needs improvement?

The pricing could be improved.

I would like to see some kind of packet tracer where people can study how the switch is operating.

White box switching support is something that I would like to see in the future.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been working with HPE ProCurve for at least 17 years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

This is a very reliable solution. In the 17 years that I have been using this product, I have had two power supply failures. However, these did not result in downtime because each switch has at least two power supplies. I was never left without the switch working due to a hardware failure.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

We have more than 1,000 users in total but on a daily basis, there are 600 to 700 users in two locations.

How are customer service and technical support?

The technical support from HP is very good. The last time I had a question, not a repair, but just a question of any kind was perhaps 10 years ago. I normally have a good recovery plan in advance of making any changes, which means that I don't have to bother the HP help desk with frivolous questions.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

Prior to this solution, I was working with Cisco switches, which we still have a lot of. We have physical network layers and for some purposes, the Cisco switches are very good. My preference, however, is ProCurve.

I have experience with switches from Dell. They lack some features but they are much cheaper than HPE.

How was the initial setup?

I find the initial setup to be easy and straightforward.

What about the implementation team?

I perform the implementation, deployment, and maintenance. If I need to clear up the fiber channel, a transceiver, or something else, then I do it myself. If we need to connect and patch one of the switches then I just configure a port, send an email, and the local staff can do the patching.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

This is an expensive switch.

What other advice do I have?

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to plan well. Most of the reason for error is poor planning. Be sure to ask your vendor questions because there are no dumb questions. Rather, silly mistakes happen when people implement without a full understanding.

This is a good product but there is always room for improvement in these kinds of devices.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Get our free report covering Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Arista, Cisco, and other competitors of Cisco Catalyst Switches. Updated: January 2022.
564,143 professionals have used our research since 2012.