Cisco DNA Center Reviews

We are using Cisco DNA Center for network management and wireless assurance.

Our business functions better by using Cisco DNA Center because we have better visibility of wireless and configuration deployment.

The most valuable features of Cisco DNA Center are wireless assurance and visibility.

The features of Cisco DNA Center and Cisco Prime could have more parity.

In a future release, there should be more deployment features.

I have been using Cisco DNA Center for approximately two years.

The stability of the solution is good.

I rate the stability of Cisco DNA Center an eight out of ten.

The latency limits our scalability. 

We have approximately 10 network engineers using the solution.

We might increase our daily usage of the solution.

I rate the scalability of Cisco DNA Center a seven out of ten.

I have not used the support.

I previously used Cisco Prime and witched because it was enterprise-grade.

The setup is complex and involves clusters. The network address allocation is complicated just between the Cisco DNA Center hardware.#The first part of the implementation is setting up the hardware and then onboarding all of the hardware. It can take a lot of time.

I rate the initial setup of Cisco DNA Center a five out of ten.

We did the deployment of the solution. We used two or three network engineers.

I rate the return on investment of Cisco DNA Center a four out of five.

The price of the solution is expensive. The hardware is licensed on the device, but the hardware on the server is expensive.

I rate the price of Cisco DNA Center a two out of ten.

I did not evaluate other options before using Cisco DNA Center.

We have one network engineer for the maintenance of the solution.

My advice to others is for them to make sure their building diagram are to scale

I rate Cisco DNA Center a seven out of ten.

I used Cisco DNA Center for centralized management for the projects I worked on. My projects had different sites and fabric networks connected. A fabric module was created for every site, and Cisco DNA Center acts as a centralized manager, so you don't need to configure the switches. You need to integrate the device with Cisco DNA Center, and the configuration will be centralized.

What I found valuable in Cisco DNA Center is the Software-Defined Access Network, so the entire LAN network can be centralized and managed from a single dashboard.

Cisco DNA Center is suitable for centralized management and lets you deploy switches in a centralized fashion. You can also do multiple switch port configurations simultaneously and segregate your traffic into multiple fabrics.

Another valuable feature of Cisco DNA Center is enhanced security through Scalable Group Tags. Cisco DNA Center can be integrated with your Cisco ISE to enhance the port securities, and this paves the way for Software-Defined Networking in the LAN segment, which is the main advantage of Cisco DNA Center.

I also like that you can use Cisco DNA Center for data assurance or correlation. The solution shows your network and client health parameters, which I find convenient for troubleshooting.

An area for improvement in Cisco DNA Center is the latency in data correlation. For example, sometimes, when an issue happens, and I check the logs, I can't find the corresponding log. There's a delay in log replication, so this is what needs improvement in Cisco DNA Center.

Reporting in Cisco DNA Center could also be improved because it only has a few templates, and you can't customize it based on your requirements. There aren't many options available in Cisco DNA Center regarding reporting, versus Cisco Prime, which has excellent features for different levels of detailed reports.

I'd like to see real-time data replication in the next release of Cisco DNA Center, similar to what's done in Meraki. Data in Meraki is real-time with no delay, so data is immediately replicated in the cloud. Currently, there's a lag in Cisco DNA Center, and addressing that lag is the enhancement I'd like to see in Cisco DNA Center.

The solution also needs to be more user-friendly.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for the last three and a half years.

Cisco DNA Center isn't as stable, particularly with the logs, because it doesn't replicate the exact logs. Configuration-wise, the solution is stable, but it isn't stable for log reproduction.

Scalability-wise, Cisco DNA Center is very good.

We've contacted Cisco DNA Center support a lot of times because sometimes we get errors that we usually can't troubleshoot, so we'd need assistance from Cisco techs. For example, because Cisco DNA Center is a centralized dashboard manager, if we make any mistake that'll impact the whole location, it's better to always refer to technical support as they have the expertise whenever we're doing any scheduled activity or whenever we're facing issues with Cisco DNA Center, rather than doing trial and error.

On a scale of one to five, we'd rate the support a three because of the delayed issue resolution from the Cisco engineers. We have to put a lot of effort into following up with them. The engineers handling Cisco DNA Center support aren't very good, and they take a lot of time getting back to us with solutions to our issues. Issues should be solved within one to two days or a maximum of one week, but that's not happening. In the past, Cisco support used to follow up with us daily, and we could schedule a WebEx with them, and they'll start troubleshooting. Nowadays, that's not the case.

For example, we wanted to integrate the Microsoft Outreach server with Cisco DNA Center to capture logs from Cisco DNA Center to Microsoft Outreach, but it took them three months to make it happen. Every time we followed up, they'll say that the engineer wasn't available for the week, so that issue would be assigned to another engineer, and that engineer would ask for the logs, and we'll tell him that we'd already checked the logs, and he'll say that he wants fresh logs. We'll then troubleshoot, and the engineer will check the logs. After he's back from his vacation, the previous engineer will come back to us; then, we'll continue based on where we left off. Following up with Cisco DNA Center support was very hectic.

Cisco DNA Center is the only product for Software-Defined Access in terms of LAN. You'll find a lot of competitors for SD-WAN, but for SDA technology, Cisco DNA Center is the only one currently, so this is the reason why my company is using the solution.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center is a bit complex. Its set of configurations is a bit difficult. First, you need to install certificates for three cluster nodes. One cluster node has to be deployed first, followed by the second cluster node, after the completion of the services. For head node availability, you need to have three cluster nodes. All steps combined make setting up Cisco DNA Center a little complex.

The solution also requires a more complex configuration for the switch router, so you need a different design set to deploy and configure it. Compared to other Cisco solutions, the setup for Cisco DNA Center is complicated.

I didn't deploy Cisco DNA Center, but I've seen people deploying it. With a good, reliable internet connection, deployment takes around three to four hours. Configuring the three cluster nodes takes almost a day.

Cisco DNA Center is a licensed product with multiple levels of licensing available such as basic, advanced, and essential. I don't have the exact figure, but Cisco DNA Center is costly. For example, the box has information about the essential license and costs a considerable amount of money. You need to pay extra to use advanced features in Cisco DNA Center.

My company sees Cisco DNA Center as a solution that's worth the money, which is why it invested in the solution. If you want centralized management for your network, especially when upgrading it, Cisco DNA Center is perfect, but it's more suitable for a large-scale rather than a small-scale network.

I have hands-on experience with Cisco DNA Center.

I've worked on three projects using Cisco DNA Center, either a single standby or three-cluster node. Whenever there's a large-scale network, my company tries to go with Cisco DNA Center. As a whole, my company has between ten to fifteen projects utilizing Cisco DNA Center. Whoever wants a network upgrade would use Cisco DNA Center, but there'd be different setups for every region, such as APAC, EMEA, etc. Currently, my company has nine clusters or nine boxes. A single company can have multiple projects that use Cisco DNA Center. Because it's an evolving networking technology, people get accustomed to it and may want SD access, not just LAN.

My advice to others who may want to implement Cisco DNA Center is that before buying a product, you need to understand what it can do and how to handle it. A typical engineer working on a legacy network won't be able to work on Cisco DNA Center because it has a different protocol, technology, and configuration. It would be best if you learned how to handle Cisco DNA Center before going with it, so I suggest getting trained by Cisco first. Without the training, using Cisco DNA Center isn't going to be easy for you. You won't know how to integrate a switch with Cisco DNA Center unless you get the training. Through the training, you'll also learn the protocols. Before making the purchase, you need someone to explain Cisco DNA Center to you.

I would rate Cisco DNA Center as seven out of ten. It's a new technology with Software-Defined Access capability, which allows centralized LAN management, so I prefer Cisco DNA Center over other solutions. Cisco DNA Center still requires a lot of improvements, though, so I deducted three points out of ten.

I'm a customer of Cisco DNA Center.

I used Cisco DNA Center for LAN automation for the DnaC.

I like that we can easily configure any new hardware. It's also easy to deploy and easy to troubleshoot.

Technical support could be better. The price could be better, and it could be more stable.

I used Cisco DNA Center for about a year while working with two organizations on a freelance basis.

Cisco DNA Center could be more stable.

The scalability of Cisco DNA Center is okay.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give scalability a seven.

Technical support is also struggling because it's a new product. They are not hundred percent sure about it. For example, it took them one week to fine-tune this appliance with the help of Cisco tech support.

Neutral

The initial setup isn't straightforward. It was a painful deployment. We have a couple of tickets with Cisco tags to be deployed because this is an unstable product. This is because it's tough to integrate with Cisco ISE which was running on the VM appliance, it was excruciating. Another common issue is that the end-use could not detect an IP address or authenticate it after we integrated it, on the branch side we are using Cisco Catalyst 9500/9300/9200 Series Switches.

The challenging part is that it has to be deployed on a standard load and integrated with Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE). I'm not sure why they have used Cisco ISE for authentication. It should be deployed and not integrated.

I implemented this solution.

The price could be better. It's a very expensive tool.

I would tell potential users not to buy Cisco DNA Center as it's a considerable expense that isn't worthwhile.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco DNA Center a seven.

We use the solution’s capabilities to the maximum.

The product gives a consolidated view. It has good tools for creating standard templates. It is good for basic troubleshooting.

The product doesn’t have good monitoring capabilities. It should be improved. The data has a lot of inconsistencies. We cannot trust it or rely on it. The solution has a lot of bugs in assurance and provisioning. Sometimes, in the inventory, the devices are out of sync. The AI features are very basic.

I have been using the solution for three to four years.

The product is not stable. I rate the stability a five out of ten.

The tool is scalable. If we want to scale it, it will be expensive. There should be a good ratio between scalability and cost. Our clients are medium and large enterprises.

The technical support is not excellent, but it is good. If we seek information that is not in the public documentation, then we don't get answers from Cisco TAC. The support could be improved. If we are unsure about the behavior of a feature or application, we should get proper documentation from Cisco on how the feature should work.

Neutral

The deployment is easy after we get the IOS image. However, when compared to cloud-hosted solutions, the process requires manual work. We have to deploy it manually. If everything is ready, it takes us a full day to deploy the tool. It takes one week to deploy it if we have to prepare the network and get the IOS image.

One engineer is enough to deploy the tool. Maintenance is not super easy. The upgrades are time-consuming. The features do not work as they're supposed to sometimes. If there are errors, we have to contact Cisco TAC.

The solution is expensive. There is a recurring license fee that has to be paid annually. There is also a one-time cost for the appliance, which is also expensive.

We are partners with Cisco. People wanting to use the product must compare it with other tools and choose accordingly. Overall, I rate the product a six out of ten.

We are using the solution for network management.

The solution's most valuable features are AI and machine learning.

The solution's integration feature needs improvement. It could be integrated more and more into the traditional environments.

I have been using the solution for two years.

It is a stable solution. I rate its stability eight out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability eight out of ten.

The solution's technical support team is very responsive.

Positive

I used Cisco Pro previously.

Following the solution's deployment guide makes the setup process more accessible. It needs two or three engineers and takes around four hours to complete. Although, it is time-consuming to download the updates through ethernet.

It is an expensive solution. The licensing cost depends on the environment.

The solution works best in an API environment than in a traditional network. I rate it nine out of ten.

We use this solution for network architecture and data implementation. I was working on a project, designing a city. We used Cisco DNA Center as the software-defined solution for this city.

The most valuable features were the monitoring, maintenance, and configuration. It was easy to work with and allowed a lot of engineers to connect. Before it, there were a lot of problems. However, when the problems were solved, it allowed full automation and easy monitoring and handling. Also, it makes patching and upgrading to the newest version easier.

They can improve the network visibility. Licensing and its maintenance are also needed.

We are trying to reduce the company's and employees' assets and give it extra features. We are also separating the wireless SSI test network and trying to manage all the company properties through it.

I have been working with Cisco DNA for the last year.

It is a stable solution. 

It is easily scalable in Mastercard. We are designated in card distribution and access the claim assistance. I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

We didn't ask for any support from Cisco because our team had rich experience in working with Cisco's products. We already have experience with Cisco Prime before using DNA solutions.

The setup was easy. The catalytic switches are mostly related to the CNA and server management. It is mostly done in two parts. While we are implementing the solution, we just need to create the configuration template. While updating the solution, we need to change the business management and push the configuration to the wireless switches. We can also access the same by buying a console connection.

The deployment took almost three months. But before it is implemented, the arching and design take almost six months.

The solution is a little bit expensive but depends a lot on the customer's usage. If you use it in the right place, you can easily pay for it. 

My advice is to categorize before implementing the DNA cluster. If the architecture is not good enough, you might face some issues with the transceiver. It might not be compatible with other solutions.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco DNA Center for management. You can configure any device, and if you put the device without configurations, you can start to configure it through Cisco DNA Center. For example: if you get a new Cisco switch, and you have other Cisco switches configured, you can plug in the new switch, copy the configuration, make the changes, and make the template, or you can use an existing template and just upload it to the device.

What I found most valuable in Cisco DNA Center is the ability to manage any device through it, because the infrastructure is for Cisco, and we have Cisco routers and Cisco switches.

In terms of areas for improvement in Cisco DNA Center, we don't use the product on 80% to 100% of its capacity, because our infrastructure is a small one. For us, it's enough. We have report capabilities, and other capabilities that we need are configured on the solution. If there is an expansion for any Cisco solution, we can integrate it with Cisco DNA Center, for example: with ISE, so we're fine.

What could be improved is the licensing cost of Cisco DNA Center. It's a little bit expensive.

I've been using Cisco DNA Center for the last six months.

In terms of the stability of Cisco DNA Center, we had a few bugs, but we managed to overcome them. For example: there were times we needed to reboot the device because it was not connecting.

How scalable Cisco DNA Center is would depend on the license you get. If you need more devices, you can always buy more licenses, or expand your current license.

There was no need for us to contact technical support, because we're not using Cisco DNA Center 100%. Our infrastructure is small, so we're just using the solution to reduce staff.

The initial setup for Cisco DNA Center was straightforward. On a scale between one and five where one is the worst and five is the best, I'm scoring the setup a four. Anyone could do it.

Licensing for Cisco DNA Center is a little bit expensive, just like any Cisco solution. Its cost could still be improved.

Cisco DNA Center is deployed on-premises. There is a link for the cloud because you need to have internet connection, but the data stays on-premises.

The advice I would give to other people who want to use Cisco DNA Center is to go for it, particularly if they have Cisco infrastructure, though these days it's really hard to do that because integration could be an issue. If they have other Cisco products they use in their infrastructure, it'll be a plus, so they should use Cisco DNA Center.

I'm rating Cisco DNA Center eight out of ten.

We use the solution as a management platform for campaign work. 

The solution helps with the management and orchestration of campaigns. It helps with visibility and analytics. I also like its SDA configuration. 

Cisco DNA Center should improve its configuration management. It is better to have a dev version before pushing it. 

I have been using the product for the last two years. 

I rate the tool's stability a six out of ten. 

I rate Cisco DNA Center's scalability a five out of ten. 

Cisco DNA Center's installation is complex. 

Cisco DNA Center is too expensive. 

I rate the product a six out of ten.