Cisco Enterprise Routers Reviews

Our primary use for this solution is for Internet access and firewall.

The commitment to Cisco products based on their advice and knowing our model and what we wanted to accomplish did not put us in an optimal situation. I do not think this solution has improved our organization.

I don't particularly like the product. The decision to go with Cisco was made by the company. Now they made an expensive investment so they feel we have to keep this equipment.

The capacity of the equipment should be improved. Cisco sells expensive equipment, but it does not really have greater performance compared to the price paid for it. So, we're paying very high prices for medium — or low to medium — capacity equipment.

One thing that I would like to see is a more user-friendly dashboard. Really it generally needs easier capabilities to do basic management of the product and the system for users who are not Cisco employees or representatives.

Though it is not directly the product, their technical support services can be improved. We have not had many problems with the product, but we pay for support and they have not really solved the issues we submitted to our satisfaction. It is the same with Cisco iOS. We know that when we install the next version, we have come to expect that something will break. Testing upgrades should be improved as well.

Around 70 people are currently using the products. There are two administrative or technical employees dedicated to maintenance. The scalability seems limited by performance.

We have opened cases with the Cisco customer support. Early on we didn't really have many issues. For what we pay for the platinum support, I don't think that they are doing a great effort in working with us. In one instance where it seemed to me that Cisco didn't really understand the problem, they tried to push us to get the newest equipment. The same equipment was working fine for the same thing about two months before that. So, it doesn't make sense to have to upgrade the equipment when something has broken that was working. I think that something was wrong either with the licensed upgrade on the iOS that did it. I don't know. But I do know that Cisco was not able to pinpoint exactly what the problem was and the solution they offered did not make sense. If it was hardware that we have a warranty for or an upgrade that they introduced, they should be able to locate the problem for clients paying a premium for their services. 

Reflecting on that incident, they seemed more interested in selling more equipment than to really dig deep and discover what the problem was.

Actually, it is the Cisco products we use now that we will be replaced with another solution. We did not move from something else to Cisco. We have plans to get rid of the equipment. We want to switch to another vendor which has more robust products for a lower cost. We pay too much for what we get in performance. The problem is not really in terms of capabilities but in terms of the capacity of the equipment. It makes no sense for us to have such expensive equipment where we can have router equipment with less complexity and then have proper firewalls behind it.

The features Cisco intends to include in their product are very limited due to the way the features affect the capacity of the equipment. For example, imagine that the equipment is capable of handling a hundred megabits of internet access without any additional features configured. After the additional features are enabled and configured to perform the job as advertised, the bandwidth and performance are reduced drastically. It makes no sense to have such expensive equipment if it does not do what is intended or if it does not do it as well as another configuration would using dedicated products. Cisco advertises all the things you can do, but then you get the overall capacity squeezed and it is not as great as advertised.

It is not exactly that the product does not do what it is advertised to do, but you lose the performance that you expected when going with this model. If we knew about this performance drawback before, then we would not have bought this expensive line of the product. We would have gone with something cheaper. It could even have been a different Cisco product, but we would configure the network in a different way. We would not do the firewall in JCL (Job Control Language) that's on the routers, but we would do it on a proper firewall. If we did not spend that much money on the gateway equipment, then we could get different equipment with a proper firewall using what we saved. 

I thought that the initial setup was very complex. Cisco does not have a straightforward logic for the configuration of the equipment. You need to do a lot of extra things. For example, you have to open a specific port to the outside to allow traffic, you have to review the ACL (Access Control List), and you need to review firewall provisions. It's a bit complicated to manage compared to other equipment and in other firewalls where it is a much simpler process. I find it complex to manage this Cisco solution and I am sure it can be simplified.

Our deployment took about two to three months, at best, to tune it up to make all work properly. It was not done alone by me, but it was all done in house. I have a good team of people, but it took too long to get everything dialed in. Even after that time, we had only met most of the requirements that were outlined. There was still more to do.

We have a team and did our own implementation.

We don't have any licenses at this time. There were some compensating licenses that needed to be renewed every year, but then Cisco ended that practice. It was also sort of the local price break for the solution. Currently, we just pay for the hardware once and extra for the warranty extension. Besides those costs, there were no additional expenses. We did pay additional for a specific module. It was from another company embedded inside the Cisco product and we had to renew every year on that license. But then Cisco stopped promoting the use of that feature. When they did the product performed better because the module was taking up too much of the CPU usage.

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate Cisco Enterprise Routers poorly from the experience that I have had. I would say a three or possibly four. I wish we had gotten the correct information from Cisco when we talked to them back when we were considering the solution. We told them what we wanted them to do and they recommended this solution. I think there may have been a miscalculation of the sizing of the equipment. So, I give it three out of ten because I could do the same or have the same or better result with a different solution that was not as expensive as this equipment.

The company and products are good overall, but they still overprice the equipment compared to the competition.

My advice to others considering this solution would be not to do what we did. Don't go with the all-in-one solution. Buy a basic product that Cisco certifies is more than capable of routing the traffic that you expect on the network, then get a decent firewall behind the router to really take care of security, content filtering, ACL and all the rest that a firewall does. It could be a bit expensive, of course, because you're buying two products instead of one. But what you can get out of it is much more than we get now from this Cisco solution.

It's not by any chance that when ISPs all over the world deliver an internet access line, they don't give you the top of the line support equipment. They don't push you to buy Cisco because it is the best. They give you something really basic because it's not supposed to do anything else than routing traffic from and to the internet. They expect you to have a firewall behind that router to manage all the rest of what a firewall is supposed to handle. Those providers know exactly what they're doing.

What I have learned from my experience with this product is to do more to check for something else as alternatives and compare products without just accepting a reputation and advice from the vending company's experts. You might not need to buy something expensive to really accomplish what you need to do. 

I use the router to connect to the internet.

The stability of the solution's router is its most valuable feature.

The configuration needs improvement. Most routers, like HP or Aruba, use a UI interface. Those solutions are similar and uniform. It's easier for us compared to Cisco because with Cisco you are not using normal commands. They need to enhance the UI to make it more usable.

The stability of the solution is fantastic. We haven't touched it for five years now. You just set it and forget it.

We don't contact Cisco technical support directly. If we have a problem, we can contact any one of the Cisco suppliers and they are able to give good support.

I didn't previously use a different solution.

The initial setup was easy. Deployment only took one day.

I'd recommend the solution. Once you plug it in, you can basically forget about it because there are never any issues. It just works, and that's great. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

The primary use case for some of our customers is to build their network. Others want to upgrade their networks because they have expanded their office or have new offices or new buildings.

The most valuable features are security and throughput. Security is very important and the throughput is valuable because the data amounts get bigger each time.

The scalability of this solution needs to be improved because the amount of data gets larger and larger as does the network. This should be a part of the site share equipment.

In the next release, I would like to see cloud management and cloud security.

Also, for our customers, if they could have all of their tools in one place for monitoring and configuring their equipment, and it should be very secure.

This solution is very good and stable.

When you sell millions of routers and features, you will always have some type of issue. With any solution you have different situations with installation or with configuration. In general, it's a very low percentage of issues.

This solution is scalable but it does need some improvements.

There are no limitations to the number of users it can have, but it depends on the equipment and the network size. One local router could serve maybe five hundred to one thousand customers, whereas a larger network can accommodate more, so the number of users depends on the equipment and the technical parameters.

In the case of issues, you can contact customer support and it will be resolved in a very short time.

The technical support is very good.

I used to be an integrator and when I had some cases or tasks we had very quick and qualified support with Cisco.

The initial setup is easy and straightforward. This solution has a web-based interface which makes it easy for installation.

The deployment can take one or two days. If it's a new implementation and it just needs to install one router in a network, it can take less than a day. But, if it's in Europe and it has a complicated network because they are large, it will take time to make new routes or policies. This can span one or two days.

Some of our customers have their engineers who can implement this solution, so they don't use a reseller or integrator. However, in most situations, resellers and integrators are hired to implement this solution.

Buy official equipment and services from Cisco and you will have fully qualified technical support.

There are no limitations, you should go forward with the solution. There is always something new being developed and it is always growing.

This is a company that is very innovative.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The solution is very stable. I have not seen any downtime due to the product freezing or anything like that. It performs well and hasn't required reboots unless it's to troubleshoot with a support service provider needing configuration. It doesn't overheat and it's on 24/7. 

It would be great if there was a graphical user interface or something to interface with the router.

If I only have one LAN port in which I want to connect more than one device, I have to buy an add-on card so that I can have two LAN ports. The smaller devices and low-end routers have about four LAN ports. This solution is a high-end device but has only one. It would be preferable if they offered more LAN ports.

I don't know whether the solution can be cloud-managed. When I am away from work, it would be great if I could still have access and manage things, check the configuration, etc. Right now, I don't have a way of monitoring things if I am not at my desk.

I need a feature introduced where I can be able to tell if my provider is giving me constant capacity. The solution should be able to alert me to when the capacity fluctuates so I can go back to my provider and tell ask them why they are giving me less capacity than I am paying for.

The stability of the solution is very, very good. 

There was a time I was experiencing some issues with the low-end Cisco router, the 800 series, but I upgraded to the enterprise option and its performance has been remarkable, I have no complaints whatsoever.

We haven't attempted to scale the solution, so I can't really speak to if it's easy or difficult.

I've not engaged with Cisco technical support directly, but the resellers supporting us have been excellent. I prefer to work with the internet service providers because they are the ones who sold the Cisco router to me and they've been supporting me very well and I am happy with their assistance.

We didn't really use another solution, at least not on a large scale. We did use some small routers like Linksys for a handful of people. For the purpose of our internet connectivity from the service provider to my company, I wanted to use Cisco.

Deployment took some time. One person came in to terminate cable. Then, the next day, they sent someone to configure the router which took three hours. Some of the settings weren't quite working right, which is why it took that long. 

The initial setup was done by my internet service provider because they did not want anyone to tamper with their configuration. 

We operate a hotel and we have clients who are logging into the WiFi all the time. We need to give them good connectivity. Sometimes we get as many as 500 connections and we know that with Cisco unless the service provider lets us down, the device won't fail. It's a very good product.

I'd recommend the solution. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is MPLS and Internet routing.

I am a network architect and this is one of the solutions that I have worked with.

We are required to build an MPLS network in our company, and this solution has been very useful.

The most valuable features of this solution are MPLS, BGP, and VRF.

The support for SD-WAN technology is not mature yet.

I would like to see the setup time reduced.

We have no issues with respect to stability. It is ok.

Scalability is ok.

I have not recently been in contact with technical support because it is the operational team that would deal with opening tickets. However, when I dealt with them several years ago, I was satisfied most of the time.

The setup of enterprise routers is primarily hardware and it takes a long time to set up.

Our in-house team performed the deployment.

The price of this solution is high.

In one or two years, once SD-WAN is more mature, we may switch from our traditional routers and protocols to be completely integrated with SD-WAN.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to consider the routing that is needed because it can change the way you set up and deploy. There are differences between MPLS, internet routing, and office connectivity. SD-WAN will also be something to look into.

This is a good solution, but it's not perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the on-prem deployment model. Our primary use case is for connection to the internet. For example, it's my connector to the point then the user internally browses. It's my router and a switch, just for small business clients. We use it to connect to the internet. 

The VPN is the most valuable feature of this solution. The basic clients who don't use the VPN use it mostly for connectivity. 

I've never had a client come to me with a problem with this solution.

The pricing could be improved. 

It is stable. 

It is scalable. If we are adding a network and then a branch, that is just with a press of a button but increasing internally isn't so easy. Physical scalability is easier. For example, I have a client who has funding from Nairobi then to Mombasa and they want a branch office.

In terms of the users, I have ten plants that are using this. 

With Cisco, they will help you with the solution if you don't know how to do something. 

The initial setup is straightforward. The one interface that I use for one command center and the LAN are simple to set up.

I set it up myself. I'm working on getting a partnership with Cisco.

I would rate it a nine out of ten. Nothing is perfect and Cisco is always developing and improving the product. 

I would recommend it. I sell the product and I would recommend this one as an internet solution. I get everything I need from this solution. 

We primarily use the routers for internet and wire connection.

The routing feature is the solution's most valuable aspect. 

The solution is more flexible in configuration and in deployment. The deployment is very easy.

Currently, we use the 4000 series of the solution, however, there were issues with the 1900 series.

The solution needs to offer some security features in a future release.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is very scalable. In our company, we have about 10,000 users. We don't plan to increase usage right now.

Technical support is excellent. I'd rate them ten out of ten.

We previously used, and still use Juniper. We use both Juniper and Cisco within our organization; we haven't replaced one with the other.

The initial setup was straightforward. Deployment takes about two hours.

Our strategy was to have both high and low-level information in regard to the configuration. We usually have it in our script and we can use this information to assist us with deployment.

You require about two people for deployment and maintenance of the solution.

In most cases, I handle the implementation myself. However, in some cases, we used system integrators due to the nature of the contract involved.

There's a yearly licensing agreement. You can add more features at an additional cost if you need to.

We're mostly using the 4000 series of the solution.

In terms of advice, I'd say users need to be clear about customer requirements to avoid overpaying for features they don't need. They should take care to select the proper router type and use the proper license. For deployment, they need a high level of understanding, for the implementation and configuration. They need to be prepared for all scenarios to be network ready. Something might turn off, for example, so they need to be prepared for those instances in order to properly handle them.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use these routers in our data centers, in several places.

The most valuable feature is the Cisco DNA (Digital Network Architecture).

We achieve good performance in our data center. We are connected to the other locations via remote lines and the capacity is lower than what is supported by the equipment. Clearly, the equipment is good.

We would like to see the security improved.

To this point, this has been a stable solution.

The scalability has been ok until now.

We work with a consultant firm for our technical support.

We have always used Cisco equipment. Cisco is known worldwide by everyone and most people know what they stand for.

The complexity of the solution depends on what you are going to implement.

Just routing the internet into our location is simple and straightforward. It's always through the MPLS, which means that we don't need to be aware of things other than configuring the firewall.

The setup can be quite difficult, but that's the way Cisco likes to do it. That's why we need to hire extra people from the outside to come and help.

We are still in the process of deploying this solution.

We are using consultants to assist us with our deployment and they are very qualified to do this setup.

The Cisco name guarantees that it is a good product and it meets most of the demands.

We expect that Cisco DNA will solve the problems that we had in terms of security. It was quite difficult before, with the 802.1X. Now, it is more flexible.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.