Cisco DNA Center Reviews

The solution is useful when an organization has a mature infrastructure with all Cisco devices.

Application Assurance works very well. The micro-segmentation and Multi-Cisco DNA Center features are also good.

The product has many features that do not work properly. We can’t work on basic DNA activities. The tool has very complex features. It's not stable, and it's not fully estimated.

I have been working with the product for almost one year.

The tool is not stable and reliable.

I don't think there is an issue with scalability. The main issue with the solution is that there is no way to integrate any other vendors with it. It is scalable, but we need Cisco devices.

It's mandatory to have access to technical support because it's a very complicated product. We have SmartNet from Cisco.

The initial setup is very complex. We must have a mature Cisco environment and a well-defined built-in configuration on the devices. Not all the devices would work properly. We must have the latest devices. It's very complex to build it.

It takes at least two months to deploy seven switches on one site. On average, the deployment takes one to two months.

We take help from Cisco partners for deployment. Our team does some of the implementations. It depends on the project and the budget. We need a manager, a technical team leader, and three engineers to deploy it.

We must upgrade all the devices to the optimal stable version to deploy the tool. Then, we must configure the initial IS-IS configuration. We need reachability between the devices for the product to work. Then, we must provision the devices in DNA one by one. Provisioning is the most complex process because the tool will check and verify every single command on the device.

Sometimes, the provisioning fails because of a conflict in configuration. It takes too much time to erase the configuration and redo the provisioning. After provisioning, we must configure the VLANs and the border routing from the overlay to the underlay.

The product is very costly. We must have a DNA license and upgrade it if we use it. Money is a major issue that we have with the solution.

We did not have any user experience issues. I don't highly recommend the tool. Organizations with expert Cisco engineers can use the product. It's not suitable for organizations that don't have any expertise. Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten.

Our customers use the solution to manage and centrally apply device policies. Many administrators are moving away from manual configuration, and DNA Center helps automate network management. Some use it purely for assurance, such as troubleshooting, monitoring, and generating network performance reports. The 360-degree view feature is widely used for monitoring networks, and many customers also leverage automation and access control features.

The platform's most valuable features are automation and assurance. Automation helps configure devices without manual intervention, enabling zero-touch provisioning. Devices like switches can seamlessly be added to the network, reducing time and effort. It also ensures policy compliance across the network. In addition, the assurance feature provides detailed insights into network health, which is essential for efficient management.

One area that needs improvement is the upgrade process. The time required for downloading and installing packages during upgrades is too long, often taking around ten hours. This is a significant issue for customers who cannot afford such long downtime. Improvements in reducing upgrade time would greatly enhance the user experience.

We have been working with Cisco DNA Center since its release.

I would rate DNA Center's scalability as eight. It can manage large networks efficiently, and its ability to scale with the organization's growing network requirements makes it a robust solution.

I rate the initial setup around seven to eight. While the physical setup, like rack-mounting, is straightforward, the complexity arises in gathering the prerequisites, such as management IP addresses and other configuration details from the customer. With proper planning, the setup can be completed in about 30 minutes. However, the lengthy upgrade process remains a challenge.

It is mostly deployed on-premises. It comes with UCS appliances, and most customers prefer the on-premise deployment for security and performance reasons. Although cloud deployment options may be available, most of our deployments are on-prem.

The deployment time depends on the size of the customer's network. Smaller setups can take a few days if all prerequisites are in place. However, larger networks, especially those requiring fabric-enabled switches or firewall integration, can take longer. The DNA Center's configuration is relatively simple, but preparing the network infrastructure can extend the timeline.

Overall, I rate Cisco DNA Center a nine out of ten. 

Currently, we are working on building a small data center for a client. The goal is to connect all their branches and host various in-house developed services, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) applications. 

We are utilizing Cisco DNA Center with at least 9000 series switches and a couple of SD-WAN solutions. With Cisco DNA Center's single interface, we can efficiently manage and deploy devices across all branches.

There are many valuable features, but one I would highlight is VXLAN. It's a protocol that has been around for some time, but the practical implementation and operational capability of Cisco DNA Center bring it to life. It enables seamless movement of machines from one location or branch to another with the same settings and parameters. So, there's no need for reconfiguration. This is just one example of the many features available in DNA Center.

Another feature I like is Access Control Lists. There are many other things. Same with DNA Center. You have SD-Access. So, SD-Access is also a powerful feature that Cisco claims to be a replacement for the LAN (Local Area Network) from their perspective.

For me, there is room for improvement in costs. Affordability is a problem because it's created for large enterprises only. So, some customers, even if their engineers want the solution, might have problems with budget limitations.

The user interface is quite user-friendly, but what I would like is to have a small information pointer available somewhere. It could be a plus feature that I want to implement. When I hover my mouse over the user interface, it should provide a brief explanation. It would be helpful to have it incorporated into the UI.

So, in summary, when I hover over the small "i," it should display relevant information about the feature or functionality I want to implement.

Currently, from a technological perspective, I don't have any limitations. However, I have my own limitations in terms of affordability and cost.

Initially, when Cisco DNA Center was launched, we had to acquire the physical gear, such as switches that DNA Center runs on, in order to practice with it. 

As engineers, we needed access to the physical devices. Cisco announced the 9000 series, and that's when we got involved. Also, as part of my enterprise infrastructure training, we were given lab access to work with Cisco DNA Center and gain experience on the implementation side. So, in terms of practical experience, I would say it's been around one year.

I would rate stability a ten out of ten. Since we deployed the solution, we haven't encountered any issues related to stability. We haven't experienced any downsides from the solution or any problems with the running switches or installers. Our devices have been running smoothly without any stability concerns.

I would rate them a nine out of ten. My impression of scalability is that the solution can scale to any size, whether it's just a few nodes, containers, or perimeter servers in your data center. The scale doesn't matter.

So it can accommodate any scale you need. The only potential limitation would be the license, but that can be upgraded by contacting Cisco. The license is not a problem, and upgrading it is always an option by reaching out to Cisco.

If we're talking about devices, we have more than 500 devices. And in terms of users, we have over 800. Our clients are mostly medium-sized businesses.

The customer service and support were good.

Neutral

Cisco aims to ensure that all its solutions can coexist through the use of APIs. So if you want to, you can link them together and have the power and control as an administrator. From a technical perspective, I think they have done a lot.

When it comes to the initial setup, I will rate it a six, where one is difficult and ten is easy. It wasn't as straightforward as just clicking buttons on a graphical interface. Understanding the concepts and design perspective was necessary before implementation.

The reason is that it involved transitioning from the command-line interface (CLI) to using the user interface (UI) and automation tools like Python scripts to configure devices. 

It was a new technology for us, and we were accustomed to configuring devices through the CLI. Other companies, like Palo Alto with their firewalls, offer a graphical UI, but with Cisco, it was a different story. As someone who was more familiar with the CLI, getting used to the UI and other features took time.

It wasn't as simple as clicking here and there on the GUI. You needed to grasp the underlying concepts and design considerations before proceeding. So, onboarding wasn't easy.

The deployment took us approximately three months. The planning phase was crucial, where we had to consider different aspects, such as top-level management buy-in, budgeting, and designing how the existing solutions would fit into the architecture. From a design perspective, it took some time before we could move on to implementation.

I would rate the pricing as ten, where one is low price, and ten is high price.

There are additional fees to the standard license. The licensing depends on the deployment. If you use Cisco DNA Center on the cloud as a SaaS, you may have an annual subscription fee. However, if you deploy it on-premise, you would only have the standard licensing fees.

If a company is considering Cisco DNA Center, it's important to have competent engineers who understand the technology and have experience working with Cisco networking solutions. They should also be familiar with Cisco's vision and direction in piloting technology. However, companies that have engineers specializing in other solutions like Palo Alto Networks, Juniper Networks, or Aruba Networks may have a different approach and may find it challenging to implement Cisco DNA Center without additional study or external consultants, which can lead to extra costs.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. The reason I gave it a nine is because Cisco revised its certifications after 2018 when networking changed the way companies connect and design their networks. From a design perspective, everything changed with the evolution of SD-WAN (Software-Defined Wide Area Network) and software-defined access. So, bringing in a solution like Cisco DNA Center at the heart of an enterprise, especially at the data center, is significant. Our data center is essentially the same as an optical data center for this solution. So, running Cisco DNA Center at the data center and across the enterprise gives complete control because it works alongside Cisco I. It means the network engineer has the ability to implement and control all devices across the enterprise, whether it's a mobile user, desktop computer, server, router, switch, or any other device in any branch or location. Full control over these devices is possible. Furthermore, Cisco DNA Center, working alongside I, enhances security by providing user access to specific resources and offers a new approach to setting up and securing enterprise networks. It brings improvements in security, scalability, and performance.

I have been using Cisco DNA Center for almost two and a half years.

Cisco DNA Center is a user-friendly solution. When it comes to configurations, they are normally expecting the current up-and-running ports.

The solution’s security side could be improved.

I have been using Cisco DNA Center for almost two and a half years.

Cisco DNA Center is a stable solution. Compared to other software we have from a local vendor, Cisco DNA Center is very convenient and easy to handle.

Cisco DNA Center has good scalability. For one customer, we deployed between 60 to 80 devices. So altogether, we have 160 to 180 devices or users using the solution. We have plans to increase the solution’s usage.

We haven't requested any technical support from Cisco, but during the initial stage, we got some technical support from the local Cisco engineers.

Cisco DNA Center is very easy to set up.

Cisco DNA Center's deployment takes around 20 to 30 minutes. We get direct support from Cisco's local engineers to deploy the solution.

Normally, we get engineering support from Cisco. So when it comes to the solution's implementation and deployment, we get support from on-site Cisco engineers. We have with us a couple of engineers with Cisco certifications. We have downloaded the solution's demo. We get it tested inside our office before implementing it for the customer.

We get a yearly license at the time we buy the product. The solution's pricing depends on the discounts we get from the local CSCO.

I am using the latest version of Cisco DNA Center.

We have two engineers for the solution's implementation. We have four dedicated engineers for monitoring Cisco DNA Center, going through the dashboard, and updating the customers.

Overall, I rate Cisco DNA Center a nine 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.

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 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. 

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.