We use it as a hybrid. We are mostly deploying Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization on our on-prem data centers. We mostly work on-prem for the hardware infrastructure. We have a little bit on the cloud, especially with AWS or Azure.
In terms of most valuable features, we are enterprise level and we are using Cisco products for our data centers, for our WAN connectivity, and for our branches since we are a retail industry. We are a huge branch and we are connecting everything through Cisco. I have experience with Cisco Routers, especially from the lower end to higher end to ASRs, ISRs, Catalyst 6500, NSX 7000, but I have not gone through 9000 or 799 with the ACI feature.
In terms of what could be improved, I would say the cost. The SDN hardware especially is much too expensive, specifically 799 and 9000, which act like a spine and those spines are connecting to the leaves. The architecture itself is very expensive compared to NSX where we have flexibility with the virtual environment for the same purpose controlling east-west traffic, policing, profiling, and everything is done on both the features. But the Cisco hardware is much too expensive.
Performance-wise in the data center with 30G, 40G, 100G, you need to know how specific data can be sent to that 100G if you are using FCP only for the same traffic. Whereas with VMware or even Broker, they have tested 10G or even 100G with the interfaces and they give 100G performance. But with ACI, with your chip set for the FC, we still have not actually seen that the performance is productive. So the cost for the data center could be reduced.
Other things are fine because we have SDN now with Repeller and Cisco is very good here. Umbrella is good. I think it's progressing towards the cloud. The WAN is good. But on the SDN data center, software defined data center, it should be considered in comparison to partners.
I have been using Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization for more than 15 years.
Again, from the WAN perspective, especially for enterprise, it is stable.
Compared to other vendors where we have a router going up with abrupt changes, Cisco is stable.
From a WAN perspective and as an enterprise solution, yes, it is scalable. No problem with the scalability.
Technical support is good. I would say five out of five.
We get all the cost value from local partners - there are multiple Cisco partners. But because of the NDA, we cannot disclose anything else.
It is always good to work with Cisco products. We love to work with Cisco. But I respect other products as well.
On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization a seven as I have gone through the documentation compared to other virtualizations like NSX.
To bring that score up, there could be more optimization on the cloud, especially SD-WAN, which we have gone through but still I think needs way more optimization compared to partners or competitors like VMware, VeloCloud and the other vendors and SD-WAN leaders. Cisco needs to improvise for more optimization because we have on-prem and we have cloud. It's a mixed solution and Cisco is a mixed solution with images, as well as the storage. The solution should be a uniform solution, where we have only one vendor, like others that have their own platform and are using their own optimization, such as Gartner, which is top compared to Cisco.
Additionally, they should have a little bit more security on the SD-WAN side. I think Umbrella should be integrated. I think they started more integration on the SD-WAN device like a SASE kind of solution, which can be replaced for a remote access kind of solution.
I would recommend Cisco Enterprise Network Functions Virtualization, as it is easy to start, stable, and scalable on the enterprise network. These are the three key components for good performance. It is easy to manage, easy to maintain, and stable. If you set up everything alright, it will give years without any issues.
