Cisco Catalyst Switches Reviews

We use Catalyst for campus switches.

As an access switch, it really hasn't made an improvement in our organization. Access switches are similar, in most cases. It's just and end-user switch, so it doesn't really differ if it's Cisco or any other device.

Perhaps the reliability is an improvement.

VLAN gives us segregation.

Cisco should focus more on this type of product instead of on data center switches. They stopped improving the software of these switches and they are focusing on the data center. They should focus on this type of product, more than any other thing.

It might also help if they integrated their security products with the switches.

I had some hardware failure, a defect, on arrival.

There are no issues with scalability.

I would evaluate the tech support as "fair". They have multi-tiered support and especially the level-one and two don't know what they are doing. They collect a lot of information, wasting your time, and then they keep moving the tickets from level one to level two and level three, and when the issue is solved, usually level-three are the ones who solve it. They're not good at the lower levels of support.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The ROI for this product is three to five years.

I would rate the features-to-pricing ratio at six out of 10.

My advice about licensing is that you should have a perpetual license, not one that is subscription-based.

I use a lot of switches on the campus: Juniper, Extreme, etc. I use multiple vendors. However, Cisco and Juniper are my preferred vendors.

The most important thing I can say is that Cisco is using a proprietary protocol, so you should design your network accordingly so that you don't get vendor lock.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst a seven out of 10 because of the pros and the cons I have noted.

We use it for connecting the users on the network. The performance has been good.

I've used other switches as well but, when configuring Catalyst, we are able to bring the network up in a very short time. If the company wants to extend the network or wants to get some new users on board, the usage is pretty fast and, in no time, it gets moving. For other switches, it might take some time for us to do research and get the system online. So it provides business benefits. The users don't have to wait to get on the network.

Cisco is one of the most robust switches, it is easy to configure, and the documentation is pretty good. Once you install it, you never face an issue with that switch.

One feature that I would like to add is for the following: At times, when I add an access list for a hostname, it doesn't actually add the hostname, it adds the IP address. So in the back-end, if my server changes the IP address, I have to go in manually and change the IP address. If the capability was there in Cisco to add a hostname instead of the IP address that would be really good.

It's a pretty stable product. Once you install it in the network, it keeps running without any issues. You just install it and forget it.

It's scalable. If you want to install more switches it's pretty easy to pull up a wire, configure the new switch, and connect it to the network. It starts and you won't have to worry if the other switches will be compatible with it or not. In a multi-vendor environment as well, if you want to more switches, it works pretty well.

Tech support is good. The response has been good.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. There is a guide, as well as support, on the internet. We just follow it. A person who is doing it for the first time can just follow it and get it installed.

I would definitely have colleagues go for Cisco Catalyst. It's a pretty good product, stable, and reliable.

Most important when selecting a vendor are that the connection should be stable, it should have good support, and it should not be really complex to configure.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst at nine out of 10. The one point I'm leaving is for the improvement I spoke about. There is always room for improvement. Cisco Catalyst is pretty good. I have never faced any issues or challenges with it.

The use case is for user access. It's good, it's performing very well.

Catalyst functions as a core and the main benefit for us is the performance, having multiple users.

The main valuable features for me are

• the ease of configuration
• CLI
• GUI.

My dream is to have the netflow in the port, for the administration and the utilization of user traffic, similar to the Meraki.

It's very scalable. It's very easy to cover all the services.

We chose Catalyst because we are looking to the future.

When selecting a vendor, the most important criteria for me are the post-sale support as well as the price.

Catalyst is very expensive.

For our company, Cisco's competition was Aruba.

The configuration is simple and the support is good. The equipment for networking is the best for an organization. It's working very well.

I rate Catalyst at 10 out of 10 because of the performance and support.

LAN switch for both core and access layers. It has performed very well in this area.

The ease of deployment and the support are associated with a reduction in end-user downtime as well as in the operations and maintenance efforts required.

Among the most valuable features are the support and the ecosystem. There is a lot of documentation and information, and many support resources are available.

It would be helpful to have the ability to load new IOS software without performing a reboot, or to be able to perform the reboot without disrupting end-users.

This is a very stable and mature platform with a proven record of reliability.

Catalyst is very a very scalable solution thanks to its Stack mechanism, as well as the modular functionalities of some models.

Cisco TAC support is very reliable and responsive. It has always been considered an industry benchmark among all IT support organizations.

Business requirements were the driver for our switch to Catalyst. We needed an increase in port density and an increase in port speed, among other things.

The most important criterion when selecting a vendor is the quality of the support team for technical issues.

The setup of Catalyst, in general, is straightforward and easily done by following the documentation.

Extreme Networks, Juniper Networks, Dell.

Consider your business requirements and only select the needed functions/features, to avoid over-complex solutions.

I rate Catalyst a nine out of 10 because the product is extremely mature and reliable.

We usually use it for connecting campus switches and to provide access switching to the customer, through which they connect their end-user or end devices like WiFi, CCTV, or IP phone.

The features I mentioned definitely enhance the customer experience.

The most valuable features are the Stacking and the capacity of the switches because they have more throughput. Layer 2 is also part of its rich feature set.

For the access switch for distribution, I would like to see them support 100GB, 40GB.

It is very, very stable. We have not faced any problems with our clients. There have been no complaints. These switches run for many years. They have not complained about the stability of the network because of the failure of a switch. It works fine.

As I mentioned, one of the great features is Stacking. One of our customers bought two switches. After about three to four months they bought another one. They only stack the switches. They do not need to add more switches at the core or distribution, connected at the base. They can stack up to eight switches, and they will work fine with no issues.

Honestly, we have not really faced any problems with the Catalyst switches because the configuration is intuitive. Also, our engineers are expert in this area. Very rarely they may have to open a case with Cisco TAC.

For me, in presales, I can reach the system engineers easily. They support me a lot. Also the documentation is important. There are a lot of forums, discussions. If you have any problem they guide you and they solve the problem easily.

If you compare Cisco with another vendor, they are far and away better, in terms of performance and the rich features.

For me, in presales, the most important criteria when selecting a vendor are that I'm able to easily access the Cisco website and, if I need any kind of support, I immediately get it from the Cisco team, whether virtually or physically, here in Saudi Arabia. 

I'm not directly involved in the setup but from what I understand it is straightforward.

HPE comes into the picture because they have a wireless product. It's a good product. We definitely propose their switches.

If you need any support you can find it easily on their website, including documentation. You can reach out to Cisco's virtual team. Cisco gives any type of support needed to their partners.

I give Cisco Catalyst a 10 out of 10. It's scalable, resilient, and has rich features in terms of Layer 2, Layer 3, QoS. They have real vision.

Generally, we are using Cisco Catalyst switches for the campus network. We are currently using the Cisco Catalyst 3800 Series switches with IOS XE, and we also recently onboarded the Catalyst 9300 Series and 9400 Series, mostly for the campus network. We also use the 3800 Series switch for wireless connectivity, which provides UPOE, supporting up to 60 watts for the PoE devices.

Performance-wise, Catalysts are so good in the LAN infrastructure, especially for a campus network. But for a data center environment, we mostly prefer the Cisco Nexus series.

Cisco Catalyst is one of the most famous and popular devices for campus networks, widely used in most of the country. They are the preferred networking switches with many features that help eliminate the need for a more complex OSPF. They are also easy to configure and manage. With the vulnerability assessment report, we can see there are more improvements coming from Cisco for campus area network switches.

HSRP (Hot Standby Router Protocol) is one valuable feature. In the 3800 Series, we have the Stacking feature which enables combining switches to get more bandwidth and produce high-availability. The Stacking feature can also actually eliminate the need for HSRP.

I would like to see hosting multiple applications on the existing IOS.

Stability-wise it is good. We have had multiple Catalyst switches running for quite a long period of time without even a single reboot. Performance-wise that is quite okay.

The way it is being deployed it is expandable. We can add additional devices, so it is good.

I have used support for Catalyst and it was good.

In most places, we were already using it, and we are continuing to use it. We could see the stability was better and it's quite easy to manage. We are also used to it. In addition, we're able to get technical support as well as vendor support.

Setup is quite straightforward. You need to understand some of the basic components, how to set up the basic requirements. Apart from that, it is quite easy. You won't struggle much if you have a basic understanding of it.

Another candidate would be Juniper switches.

The main thing is that Catalyst has been around for quite a long period. Cisco is one of the leaders in campus area networks, so investing in Catalysts, given that they are reliable, is safe.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

I would give a Cisco Catalyst a nine out of 10 because most campus networks use Cisco and it is one of the best campus network switches. Its performance is quite good, it’s seamless, and stability-wise it is good.

The use case will depend on the customer's requirements. Generally, if they want the access layer, the 2960 works pretty well. If they are in the SMB market, we go with the SZ series which is okay. If the primary use case is more on the PoE side, Catalyst switches give the most. And with respect to two-port, the 2960 is better.

With respect to the technology, when we talk about DNA and SDN as a whole concept, that is where, as a partner, our pitching point is, where we can show our edge to the customer. For example, if we are providing a switching solution, it's not just switching, it's a whole solution with DNA. That is where the whole concept of Network Management and Network Assurance comes in. So Catalyst plays a big role in putting everything together and providing a whole solution to the customer. 

Regarding security, with Stealthwatch, Catalyst switches play an important role as well.

When we talk to the customer, giving a full solution is important. From the switching to the network DNA to the security, I can deliver the whole thing with Cisco. That is how I position things when I go to the customer. We don't just go and talk about switches. We talk about the total solution that Cisco can give.

One good feature is UPOE. Another is having a built-in controller, the customer doesn't have to ask for another controller. For example, you get a built-in controller with the C650. And two-port is one of the premium factors from Cisco.

Something I like about the 2960-XR is that you get a lot of Layer 3 features.

One issue is that the competition is giving a lifetime warranty, whereas Cisco has a limited warranty on most of it.

Also, Dell switching is coming up with a solution where you can put your own OS inside their switching infra. That is where they are talking about open networking. We can show that our Cisco is also an open-source. We are open to different switching operating systems if the customer is willing to put it in. We can support multiple operating systems inside the switching infrastructure. It removes the hardware and software dependency on each other. That is where I think there is room for improvement so we can talk about open networking. Cisco should also come up with open networking access.

In terms of stability, Cisco is the premium solution in the market. It has a cost, but it gives you that stability. That is one thing Cisco has always delivered. That is without doubt, from my perspective and also from a customer perspective. They know that reliability and stability are prime features of Cisco.

I really haven't found any issues with respect to delivering the solution. If you talk about security I would give you a different picture. But with respect to just Catalyst, there are no issues. It is totally straightforward.

Pricing is an issue I have been facing, in comparison with HPE or Juniper. The Nexus series is out of the question right now. Scalability is more an issue on the pricing side and less on the technology side.

I will always tell you to go with Cisco Catalyst 9000 Series. That is the one to go with because you never know - any day, Cisco could make certain devices or certain components of a switch end-of-life. That is always a concern for our customers: "Are you giving me a product that is not end-of-life?. Will it not go end-of-life in the coming years? I need that assurance." I always tell customers to take a device that is very new so at least it's unlikely to go end-of-life in the near future.

So Catalyst 9000 is the one we are positioning because it has a lot of new features, plus it is new in the market. If a customer asks, "Should I go with 3850 or the 9000 Series, I will say that they should go with 9000 Series because the 3850 is an older version and costs almost the same. The 3850 has been on the market for a longer time. You never know when it will go end-of-life in the coming five years or seven years.

I would rate Catalyst at eight out of 10, from my experience. I have mentioned, above, a couple of things that Cisco can come up with, technically as well as commercially. All these aspects lead me to rate it an eight. Those technical and commercial differences mean we have to work hard.

We use it mainly for access, as an access switch to other PCs.

The greatest benefit for our organization is that our Cisco Catalysts are quite reliable. We can depend on them.

The most valuable features of this solution are that they are quite robust, they hardly ever fail.

In terms of additional features or improvements, I would like to see more fiber ports, more security features, and perhaps the integration of wireless features into the switch.

It is very scalable, because of the stacking features.

Cisco supports this solution quite well. I like the support from Cisco.

I have always used Cisco. I think it is the most reliable solution on the market.

When selecting a vendor, for me the most important criteria are 

• the competency of their engineering staff
• their product knowledge.

As I said, I mostly deployed it as an access switch, and at that level, it is not complex. If you are talking about using it as a core switch, that would be much more complex. But we are only using it as an access switch.

Do a comparison with other brands and look at their features. The main Cisco Catalyst features are that it is scalable and reliable. These are two things you should look into when doing your comparison.

I would rate Cisco Catalyst at eight out of 10. It's reliable, the features are quite full-fledged, and it's scalable.