Pricing for Cisco Catalyst Switches is on the higher end, compared to its competitors, and is something that could be improved. Security could also be increased.

Cisco management is a bit more difficult but has many features. The tool is not user-friendly.

The product provides enterprise-grade switches. The vendor must provide mid-level switches. If we need automation, we can only choose higher-end switches to achieve the functionality. We cannot enable the fabric with entry-level switches. It will be good if the solution provides an additional level of switches.

The only drawback I saw with Cisco Catalyst Switches is that it's not cloud-managed. We have to manage them on-premises.

The support is not the quickest.

The addition of more security and privilege levels to Cisco Catalyst Switches is required as it is one of the areas with certain shortcomings. In my company, we use switches from Cisco with 802.1X authentication and haven't used anything that offers more security. All over the world, everything is open to facing cyber attacks, so there is a need for Cisco Catalyst Switches to offer more security.

The product must provide a better central tool for management. The existing management tool is primitive. It requires a lot of improvements. It's something that we see with competitors like Meraki. Meraki has a very good central management system.

First of all, there are some features that take a long time to get implemented, and other vendors have them for a long time before them. For example, it took a long time to have a way to commit change with the timer, so it gets undone if the user doesn't accept the change after it's done. Like, having to say the changes be done, and everything works fine. In the end, everything works fine, but it didn't exist. That's just an example of stuff that came late to Catalyst. 

The CLI structure is mostly outdated sometimes. It doesn't really make sense how things connect to each other. It's not object-oriented, stuff like that.

Moreover, if you want to stack switches, you can't really do it except that you have stack modules, which I find is outdated. Like Juniper Switches, stacks, even switches that were on different locations over Layer 3, and stuff like that. I'd suggest stacking to take cues from other vendors. 

Customization is okay, but it's not fully fledged because if it's not modular switches, you can not change it. 

Cost-wise, they are expensive, but the service they provide is very good. However, the solution should aim for a little bit more cost-effectiveness.

There is room for enhancement in customization and pricing models. 

The support team’s response and resolution time must be faster.

Cisco is the most expensive product. All hardware tools have become very expensive nowadays.

Most of the time, I struggle with the bugs. I don't find it very challenging to configure these because I have been using them for the last eight years, so I am pretty comfortable with the CLI. With these bugs, I don't know the configuration for a one time task, you configure it, you deploy it, and you forget about it.

The biggest issue we are having is with bugs and memory loss, which occurs when developing the IOS.

We also had an issue with Nexus 3548. The CPU started stalling and the switch became unresponsive. We had to call support and have someone remove that cable immediately, as we are not able to travel due to the COVID situation. Once the cable was removed, the switch came back to life.

I searched through the log and learned what happened. The CPU was stalled for 11 seconds. I searched Google and on the Cisco bug tracker, and I found that it was a bug. There is no workaround for that. It was a huge loss for us and we lost money as a result.

There was nothing that I could have done to prevent this from happening. This is a management interface that is supposed to be used to manage the device. I connected the cable not knowing that the bug existed.

Licensing is somewhat expensive and should be improved. Cisco should provide customers with a more advantageous licensing model included with the purchase of the equipment.

They have done some good by providing low-cost multiyear DNA center licenses with the purchases and have increased the number of benefits provided with the HW warranty, but must still work on lowering smart-net cost.

The product’s pricing needs improvement.

Facilitating and adapting the security updates would be a good improvement because it usually requires use to reboot the router to get them. The whole process is slightly complex and it could be easier. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches is an expensive solution and its price could be improved. The lifetime of the equipment is not enough because our customers face problems when they need to change the equipment. As applications and software demand more output, vendors focus on increasing the throughput of newer equipment. However, this often leads to the discontinuation of support and warranty for older equipment.

Cisco should work to lower its costs. It's quite expensive right now. They force the customer to buy the DNA license and that shouldn't be the case.

Instead of making automation cheaper, they are making it more expensive and clients don't like it.

They really need to simplify their licensing and simplify moving to a controller base. 

The scalability is limited.

Cisco also owns Meraki, however, they keep these switches as separate products, and customers are confused by that. Meraki has a lot of features and a customer questions why those features are there and not here. Meraki also allows for more integrations with solutions such as HP, and it's harder to integrate Cisco. 

The same is true of Nexus switches, which basically do the same thing and yet everything is siloed. It's confusing for the clients. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches' pricing can be cheaper. 

We would like to see more automation integrated into the solution in future releases. 

The product could always be more secure.

We sometimes have issues using Cisco Catalyst switches in a mixed environment. For example, we are using Fortinet's firewall, so if we jump to Cisco, then we have a problem. If we need another solution for MAC filtering, we need to go for IEEE or AAA. 

Cisco needs to improve compatibility with other solutions and other vendors like SolarWinds. We've had problems using Catalyst with SolarWinds. Some devices can't be put on SolarWinds due to some ID Values and so on. 

They need to show some flexibility because no environment depends on one product. And when we add new solutions for monitoring, troubleshooting, etc., we need integration with our Cisco devices. I think it would be great if Cisco could improve its integration with other vendors in the future.

I use the Cisco Catalyst Switches command-line interface(CLI) a lot out in the field, but there are some web interfaces features that are available that I haven't used very much. I'm more comfortable with the CLI, but the web interfaces are very lacking. 

The application controls that you have when you go through the Cisco Catalyst Switches for configuration and to see your whole network could improve. If the interface could display and recognize devices other than the Catalyst that you might have in the network to allow you to build your network. It does not necessarily need to control them, but to see they're there and how they're hooked up would make a big difference when it comes to trying to map and monitor the network activity in the system.

Those are two areas I find in the Cisco Catalyst Switches that are not as robust as some of the newer solutions, such as Aruba. You could see everything's controlled by the web interfaces, but not as much by the CLI. I don't like that Arubas CLIs, but I do like the web interface where you can see everything and control everything without having to load a special application on a computer and/or use the CLI. You can visually see all the information, and I find that's an easier learning curve for people monitoring. I haven't used it very much with the Cisco Meraki's, but a lot of the places we have worked have been with governments, and they use a lot of the Cisco Catalyst line of solutions.

If someone was trying to manage their own office, I would rate the usability of Cisco Catalyst Switches a five out of ten. Unless you know the CLI well then you will use the interface that is a little bit tricky to work with.

The security of the solution could be improved, it is really important to us.

I can't think of an area where improvements are required in the product since Cisco seems to be regularly involved in patching the software part. Cisco Catalyst Switches releases regular software updates, so there shouldn't be any issue with the solution.

It is not easy for everyone to configure the product's initial setup part, making it an area where improvements are required.

Cisco Catalyst Switches do not have an open architecture and you have to buy into the Cisco architecture to be able to use them.

Its price should be improved. It is very pricey. 

Its installation can be simplified. Its installation is a bit complex.

Products from Cisco that deal in areas like VLAN management, internal routing, and inter-VLAN routing don't seem to be compatible with other products. When users put Cisco Catalyst Switches in the same environment or infrastructure where other devices or products exist, like HPE, Aruba, and Ubiquiti, it doesn't work properly. The aforementioned area can be considered for improvement.

The prices could be improved. Cisco is dedicated to providing their customers with the latest technology, but it comes with a price. It's very expensive and when compared to competitors' products, like HP or Aruba, this is the most expensive one. 

I can't think of any additional features I would like to see in the next version. The features included are sufficient. 

I would like to see better efficiency. They are powering all the PoE ports 100% of the time instead of powering only when there is a draw on them.

It has too many options. Therefore, there is a reasonably high barrier to entry in terms of learning about this stuff. A lot of times, you need to be a CCNA, which is like your ticket into the industry, but it is not the easiest thing to get.

My company would prefer that the price was more cost-effective.

The managing of the changes and automatization should be addressed. We don't have control of the changes involving automation. In terms of what is new, network technologies and those on the cloud, the solution is outdated. Personal automatization is a feature that should be addressed. 

As we are experienced with the solution, we found the initial setup to be easy, but an enterprise which is more new to this technology may find the implementation and deployment to be somewhat challenging. 

While the solution was very good for its time, this may not be so, at present, for big, leading enterprises, such as a bank consisting of 10,000 people. 

There is always something better. The price could be better.

The service contract for technical support should be included for at least the first year of purchasing the product.

The solution’s pricing and stability could be improved.

The stability must be improved.

Their centralized management could be better. There should be some kind of software for centralized management so that I don't need somebody else to manage it.

The solution could be cheaper.

The solution’s licensing could be improved.

The product must improve its security. It should be more intelligent. The optimization features must be faster. It must follow in tandem with technology.

Cisco is basically the number one switch in the market. It makes it hard for other options to compete. 

The solution is expensive. Sometimes we will choose some cheaper options even though they are not as stable as Cisco's offering. However, if it is a small project, it may not be worth paying Cisco prices to get it done.  

At present, we are adopting many cloud solutions. We are connected to several cloud platforms and do a lot of business in the cloud. So I think that in general, we don't need many features at the moment unless we want to create some applications on the cloud. But that's not the case right now. We are thinking of moving all the people from these 20 buildings to one building. So with all of them in the same building, we'll need to design a new architecture. We have the ACI in our data centers, so we must see how all of this works. We don't know if we'll go to SD-LAN too. So I don't know if we'll use Catalyst or another solution—a solution with ACI, SD-WAN, or SD-LAN. At this moment, I can't say because we are starting to think about this new design.

With most of the Cisco devices and models, we faced a slight decrease in speed during the initial setup and while restarting the system. The performance of the solution itself is really good. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches could be more secure.

In terms of performance, Juniper switches have a more user-friendly interface and more features than Cisco switches.

The cost of this product is very high and not all companies can afford it. Government entities can but corporations these days are hesitant to get Cisco. They're looking for other options that can cut their costs by 30% or 40% from the cost of Cisco Catalyst Switches. I think the command line in the platform could be improved because it's divided and can complicate things, maybe they can go direct to GUI. Using all the commands is a bit difficult. 

The product could be more user-friendly. The tool is not easy to manage or integrate.

I think one switch should go beyond the 10 gig connectivity to 40 gigs.

The product could be simpler and cheaper.

My company cannot import Cisco products in Pakistan due to some L/C issues. Cisco can consider the aforementioned details related to imports for improvement.

The product's high price is an area of concern where improvements are required.

The management of Cisco Catalyst Switches could be improved. 

All other modules have comparatively many more functions or power than regular Catalyst switches.

In the future it would be nice to see a dynamic VLAN database that's not managed by another, say, Cisco product.

I would like for Cisco to come up with an affordable dynamic VLAN solution. This would mainly serve the purpose of network access control. My thinking is along the lines of that of my colleagues, that there are non-Cisco infrastructures available which are more affordable. This would give us the option of using Cisco Catalyst or of moving on to the competition. 

Cisco ACI is a feature I would also like to see. When it comes to automation, it would be good to be able to use Ansible or Puppet to run one's network and enforce compliance. Roadmap is the way to go, especially when it comes to network engineers. I would be very pleased if Cisco were to enable its product to work with these automation tools. This is where the challenge lies in deployment for most network engineers. Automation is key. 

Their price should be improved. They are a little bit expensive.

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.

Cisco switches are expensive.

These switches should have better compatibility with software-defined technology.

Cisco has to lower the price of its products to make them more cost-effective.

I used to use the CLI, the command line, but some users may want to use the Web GUI.

They need to simplify the Cisco 2960 Web GUI control, but not the entire version or the functionality for the Web GUI control.

IT people will most often use the CLI to configure the Cisco Switch.

They need to simplify the Web GUI and make it easier to use, and more intuitive for the users.

The price could be better. For Cisco, there is no need for improvement except for the price. It's expensive.

I would like to see a graphical user interface for the configuration. This is something that other brands and models have.

With their constant innovation and investment in R&D, there isn't really very much the solution isn't lacking or building upon in terms of features.

The pricing could be better.

Its price can be improved. Some devices can be very expensive.

The technical support, in some cases, should be faster and could improve.

The pricing needs improvement.

Price stops entries in Africa. We are not at that level where IT is considered a very big business enabler.

When I compare with the competition, MikroTik or NETGEAR I can purchase the switch and use it for whatever I want. I don't have to add the license, or the BGP routing license, and an ERGP writing license. Other switches are the providers that work out of the box without additional hidden fees.

We would like the solution to be more stable.

Scaling can be quite costly.

One thing I think should be improved is that billing should be customizable for end-user. If the customer wants a particular feature or upgrade or does not want the feature or upgrade, it should be their choice. If the user rejects the additional services those should be cut off from the pricing and not forced on the billing. Instead, they just include these things and the end-user has no choice. That is a concern for end-users who are trying to be cost-conscious and know what they need — and what they do not need — in their environment.  

For the time being, Cisco Catalyst Switches are working well, but they are not PoE switches, which is why we would consider replacing them.

If I were to change later, I would go with the PoE version.

We have configurations for port channels between two facilities, and we cannot communicate between these two buildings. An SFP configuration uses one wire to send and receive the signal. It's opt-in. We cannot use it after the upgrade. What can we do in this situation? We already bought it. 

We have a lease between these buildings, so it's important for us. There are some other SFPs, but we cannot order them at the moment. It's a very slow project. We will order those and receive them after two or three months.

Cisco devices should support Cisco SFPs. Right now, I'm testing it on Cisco and some small devices, like Planets, and it worked. It has changed, but it's working. But it doesn't work using the original Cisco because inside of a Cisco Data Sheet it says they do not support this product on the device.

Cisco is weird about their pricing models, so that's one problem. Their operating system is also a little outdated.

There aren't any features that are missing. It's quite a good solution.

There are two different families, the older family is not programmable. The newer family is programmable and everything is there, so for now, most of the improvement is in the capacity and the speed and other items.

They could use more layer trees or VXLAN. Any modern setup which uses the SD axis and other features would benefit from this. It would definitely be more stable as we could remove all spanning trees. It's already technically there in Catalyst 9K.

Any improvements that they make should be in the wireless area of the product.

We could see more 100 GB interfaces and higher speeds in the future.

The access levels could be improved.

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.

The product should work on its pricepoints. It's an expensive solution. It's the main complaint I hear from people.

In an upcoming release, adding SD-WAN capabilities would be a big advantage for our company.

They need to implement sFlow, other than that, I can't think of anything else that needs to be improved — I am happy.

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

Recently I have had a little hiccup working with Catalyst switches. They used a few power integration features but I'm not sure they really resulted in much power saving. But, it caused cross-vendor equipment trouble.

For example, if I put some sort of equipment other than Cisco in a Cisco network, where the energy is marked as an option for Catalyst, sometimes I end up with a link breakage situation. This is because Cisco can understand its own structural power dependency and optimization, but it cannot understand the power optimization for other vendors' equipment. I had a really tough time managing the networks.

Also, Cisco has been introducing some software options in Layer 3 switches. I don't find that to be important so far, when there are have SDN options all over the world now. Certain switches are even leaving that out of the licensing option, and they are providing you embedded options so that you can actually use open-source SDNs. I don't believe that this is a good option, that Cisco is actually keeping so many licensing options for Catalyst. That is my opinion on the Catalyst 9000 series.

The cost of the product is a little high. They should work to lower it a bit.

There's a ban on my country and therefore I can't get Cisco support if I need it. It's not allowed.

While it is scalable, it could be better.

You need to have dual powers, dual power points for each to take into account the redundancy.

Compared to other switches, the Cisco products are expensive.

Installing and configuring these switches requires the proper training.

The solution is expensive. They should work on their pricing model to try to make it more affordable for customers.

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.

The biggest barrier to buying Cisco or using Cisco is the price and also the competition with competitors and with Cisco partners.  

We don't find any problems with Cisco switches except the competition pricing with other Cisco partners, especially because we are a seller and implementer. Sometimes, we find ourselves in front of partners who have better prices than us.

The biggest challenge in using the Cisco solution is the relationship with partners or Cisco partners.

Even sometimes we have clients who need to work with us. And even the needs and the bill of materials are established by us, but unfortunately, at the end, they don't buy from us because of pricing from other partners.

Competitors' prices are cheaper. 

There are multiple operating systems across Cisco's portfolio, which is problematic. Cisco's firewall has some different operating systems, while Cisco's routers have a different operating system, so you might need to have people with different expertise, and the learning curve might be a little high as compared to other network providers, which might have common operating systems across different types of devices.

The stability could be improved.

In terms of what could be improved, more integration is the main thing they should be focused on.

The solution should work to become more scalable. 

The price of the product is very expensive.

You need to predict your scaling considerations at the outset. 

The product is expensive. 

The solution could improve by adding a user-friendly GUI. We use third-party applications for log monitoring that are expensive and if Cisco could provide log monitoring as part of this solution it would be beneficial.

Pricing mainly is the only issue. For our company, IT is not a major investment, so it would be harder to convince management to invest in Cisco switches. For quality, they are the best, however, in terms of pricing, especially due to the COVID crisis and everything, investment into a network is now a lower priority. Before, when the money flow was better, it was easier to sell. However, now, for this current situation, a major point of pain in the company is price. 

Even though my priority is reliability, in order to avoid downtime, management is harder to convince and they just see the price tag. 

I have found no major drawbacks in the Catalyst platforms. The price is high, but for seemingly the best LAN switching platform available, coupled with Cisco's excellent support, the price doesn't seem to be too much.

The device age becomes an issue. For example, with the 2960 version, they're not supporting that one anymore. I find that the device or the model age is a little bit short. It is five or eight years. When we have a big organization, we have 100 or 200 switches, and suddenly it's out of support, end of support, or end of life, or whatever, it's difficult as we cannot change switches every five years. At a minimum, they should last ten years. That's better. To upgrade, it's a huge budget. Therefore, the age of the product itself is a little bit short. They really should make it longer.

The technical response could be faster in the future. 

I can't use older Cisco devices with newer versions of the controller or switches. For example, if a switch was manufactured in 2014, I can't use it with a controller made in 2019. I have to change the switch so that I can upgrade my network or my devices. I don't have the option to update the version I have on the image of the AP or the controller.

Also, in the K5 Series of the switches —  Cisco calls them "Core" switches — they have some commands that Catalyst doesn't support, so you have to know the command lines for two different devices to configure them. It's a bit confusing when you are working on both at the same time, and you have some problems, then you notice that you didn't use the correct command for that switch.

The price could be improved.

Its initial setup can be simpler, and it would be great if we can work with a reference architecture.

Cisco has the capability to provide a very integrated solution. They have DNA Center, Cisco ISE, Cisco Prime, FMC, and AMP. We are looking at all the products, but it is rather complex to pick out the right licenses that you need. The license structure is a bit complex. Sometimes, there is an overlap in products, which does not really make sense. For example, you have DNA Center and Cisco Prime, and it is not really clear what you would use for what exactly.

There is a lot of information on the Cisco website, but it takes a while to go through all this and look at the presentations that are available from Cisco Live. These presentations are appreciated, but sometimes, they are a bit too much like bullet points. You don't exactly know what's behind it, so you have to do a second guess. Overall, there is a lot of information but not always to the point.

We are not working off the latest version so the switches on the product are very old and that could be improved. The one gig boards are strictly one gig and not backward compatible. This switch also does not have power over ethernet, so that's old.  

I'd like to see a better web interface. I can't tell you what the existing generations have so I'm sure there have been improvements. These are so old and I'm sure modern switches now have much better tools to interface with them.

Cisco switches are really expensive compared to other solutions, which is something that should be improved. They are almost double in price.

As of late, Cisco has been moving from one technology to the next and they don't support each other. If you want new features then you have to buy a new product and forget about the old one. This is from a licensing perspective. For example, the Cisco DNA license versus then Cisco One license are things that I don't know about.

I would like to see better compatibility between Cisco and other vendors. There are a lot of features that are for Cisco devices only, and when you bring in a second or third vendor there are a lot of problems. Fixing this incompatibility would be an improvement. I have not tried a lot of other brands, but I have connected both Huawei and Aruba Wireless with Cisco. Connecting Huawei with Aruba Wireless works well with no hangs. However, connecting Cisco and Huawei is terrible. Sometimes you have to restart one, whereas other times you have to restart the other. I do not recommend mixing equipment between these two companies.

The newer models are not so stable. Other products like 6800, 3750, were stable but starting from 3850 it got worse. We have a lot of issues and a lot of bugs. It's a new product so it's understandable but it should be improved. 

The delivery dates need to be more expedient. This could be improved. Right now, when we need to buy a new Cisco Switch, we may have to wait a few months. It could be as much as six months sometimes. It's far too long of a wait.

We need to rely on other devices to provide management features. Other solutions provide more features and Catalyst Switches is not user-friendly. Even the configuration is difficult for our new engineers. Cisco has some weaknesses. 

The licensing process should be back to how it was before. Now, you have to register online, and it makes staging a bit trickier.

Pricing could be cheaper as well.

In the next release, they should lower the price. It's too expensive. 

They should also have a graphic interface for the switches too without the command line. 

The user interface needs improvement. It might make them a bit more user friendly.

The one thing that I came across with the Catalyst 2950-X switch was that I wanted to alter the dashboard, so I connected it to the management interface. I gave it an IP address and I used the browser. However, as soon as I accessed it, I realized that the system of the computer from which I was accessing it didn't support that version. I was using Linux and the OS didn't support the switch. I had to get a Windows computer to access the switch. The dashboard was difficult to manage. It would have been nice if they made it obvious that it didn't work on Linux.

The price is high and it should be improved.

Cisco Catalyst Switches should have better performance and be easier to use. Additionally, they should add artificial intelligence features.

The solution could improve by having a video IP feature.

An area for improvement would be the documentation and training on configuring this product.

The only improvement I would like to see with Cisco Catalyst Switches is the pricing.

The configuration setup is a little more complex if you go into detail.

The price is something we would definitely like improved. It would be nice if it was more economical.

The solution is quite expensive for our clients. It's a pain point for some companies. They should work to reduce the price.

It can have more security features to secure the access layer.

Their price should be cheaper. We lose a lot of work because of the price that they have.

I'd like to see better reporting and also integration possibilities with other platforms. It's quite an expensive product and it would be helpful if they reduced the cost. 

It would be good if they added some machine learning which would allow us to abandon the rigid rules for processing traffic priorities and, at the same time, save money, because equipment with similar logic (like DPI) is much more expensive.

Soon, we plan to migrate to the cloud infrastructure. It would be good if the Cisco switches worked quickly in the cloud, like their hardware devices. Ideally, they would be like OVS-DPDK, but they would work out-of-the-box.

The initial setup can be easier in cases where the policy and ruleset are complex.

The GUI should be addressed. I am not certain if they have this. 

The solution is kind of expensive when compared with other products. 

Catalyst Switches could be more secure.

The solution offers a bit of complexity and you need a specialized workforce.

The scalability can be a bit limited due to the stacking topology which limits the number of switches that can be added in a given stack

It's always a while before you can get through to technical support.

The solution could improve by allowing administrators to create scripts to help automate processes to make tasks easier.

I would like to see the integration of the 2960 SX switches. I would also like to see more information about them.

We'd like Cisco to integrate better with other solutions, including their own.

I would like to see support for one-touch provisioning.


By use zero touch provision , We do need a lot of config for system boot and other, That should be improved.

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/...

It can be a little more cheaper.

The solution could be easy to use, you need a certificate to use it.

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.

As a user, I would like to see the Layer 2 Switches to have NBAR capabilities as well. It would be nice if the new ISRs have firewall capabilities as well.

An area for improvement would be the high price.

This product could be improved with cheaper pricing. 

Cisco Catalyst Switches could improve by having more integration with third-party products.

In the next release, I would like the solution to be able to integrate easily with third-party WFi products.

In a future upgrade, I would like to see integrated wireless in the solution.

Its price can be improved. It is currently expensive.

Out of the competition, Cisco switches are easily the most expensive.

There's something at Cisco called a console that is used for basic configuration and everything and I think that they excluded a normal USB. Instead of that micro USB they should put in the normal one. It would make things a bit easier.

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

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.

At first glance this switch looks exactly like the an Ethernet switch, I would recommend that there be verbage in the documentation on exactly what gbit connectors are required.

There are some models that can occasionally cause problems. If a particular switch is made for some specific use case or a particular environment, if you put that in other types of infrastructure or use cases, then you may face problems.

The licensing process could be a bit less complex.

There is a complexity with Cisco.

They should have unified software that includes all of the licenses. We should not have to pay for different software on the same platform. Each one has a specific use or a specific feature.

If you need dynamic routing then you have to purchase the software, if you need basic IP routing, you need different software. Why do you need this type of complexity?

They have their own propriety protocols while other competitors go with other standards and are easy. Cisco is a bit complex.

Cisco should support all of the features that are included with the suite.

There aren't any features that are lacking from my perspective. It's pretty complete.

The solution itself is quite expensive. It would be ideal if they could lower the pricing a bit.

The product could offer more integrations with other solutions. 

There are several versions of Catalyst, and yet, they are quite similar. If, in the simplest one, they could create a Catalyst segment where all the possibilities like QSFP, SFP, 10G, that would be ideal. MikroTik, a Latvian company, has that as an option. They include 1G and 10G and QSFP all in one switch. Cisco, however, divides it into several switches across these features. Cisco is likely doing it to make money. However, clients sometimes don't want to pay more for the switches and they ignore Cisco and grab other brands like MikroTik. As distributors, it makes it hard to sell Cisco when features come at such a high price. 

Another issue is the restrictions on the product. Cisco applies restrictions in relation to renewals on a yearly basis. Many other brands don't have restrictions. If Cisco lifted them, they wouldn't lose so many clients to competitors.

The current catalyst is probably outdated so we will most likely move to the newer version of the solution soon. 

Some additional features that should be included in the next release could include the ability to create real integration, standard policy pushing, and optimizations.

They should make it more affordable, improve the cost, manageability, and central management. 

I would like to see a cloud-managed feature.

• Services should be improved.
• The delivery of the product lead time should be improved as well.

When you compare it with HPE and Aruba, it should be fancier.

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

The solution could improve security.

It would be good if Cisco Catalyst Switches could align maintenance with one version.

Also, the protocols for management should be better.

It should have better security and the prices can always be lower. The cheaper the price, the better but if the quality is good, it's worth it. They also have to improve the firewalling. 

SP access should be included in the next release. 

Currently, Catalyst is completely proprietary with Cisco. They should have programmability options, through open-source controllers.

Also, some features, are very complex to configure.

• Cloud services
• Machine learning futures
• Virtual reality futures
• More IoT equipment
• Mobile software

Deliverability speed of the Terminal Access Controller.

They should make so that they let users know five to ten minutes before productivity is restored in the case of power loss. 

1. It does not provide any expansion slots so I cannot increase the number of ports.
2. If most of the switch ports get damaged than you have to replace the whole switch.

In the future, I would like to see better security for this product.

Prices could always be lower.

The implementation of the solution is a little bit difficult. It would be nicer if the process was a bit easier.

The configuration process is hard.

The pricing of the solution is quite high.

Cisco can definitely improve the training part. They can provide more training related to configuration.

The prices are high. It's more expensive than other similar options. 

I would like for them to include more cloud options in the next release and a smaller router.

The general price of the solution could be cheaper. 

They should be cheaper.

Reducing the price would be an improvement.

The price can definitely be lower. I also think that a Combi Port should be added to the next release.