Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

All Ethernet switches come in various sizes and capabilities. For example, we can have a 12-port switch, a 24-port switch, or even a 48-port switch with multiple fiber up-links. Additionally, there are different feature sets depending on the brand and model, such as IP services, LAN-based, or IP-based. Stacking is only possible with similar feature sets, which means two 9300 switches may not be stackable, but up to eight of the same model may. Additionally, the iOS and feature set capabilities may differ between the same models. All of the switches are Ethernet, but the features they are equipped with vary, which means they will operate differently. For example, a LAN-based switch will only work at primarily layer 2, whereas IP services works more as a router with features such as NAT, multicast, dynamic routing, QOS, and other additional and advanced services.

Generally, we use the switches to provide LAN access to endpoints (workstations, cameras, wireless access points, IP phones, and so on).

The most valuable feature of the solution is its stability and durability. There is no other alternative solution that is as stable as Cisco Ethernet Switches. We can expect Cisco Ethernet Switches to last for years without issue.

We often face issues with Cisco software, and while they do release patches to fix bugs, I believe they need to improve. Huawei, one of Cisco's competitors, is better in this regard. While I'm not a fan of Huawei due to my environment, clients insist on using it because it is cheaper. Despite this, I think Cisco could improve its software. Cisco should strive to improve the software for its switches. To make the switch more user-friendly, Cisco should create a system where a user can simply connect their cable and access the GUI interface without needing to configure the device first on the CLI.

I have been using the solution for nine years.

The solution is very stable.

The solution is highly scalable.

We has an awesome TAC support experience.

Positive

The initial setup of a Cisco switch is straightforward for those who are technically inclined. This is because most Cisco switches are manned, meaning they require some configuration on the command line interface (CLI) before access to the graphical user interface (GUI) is granted. With a basic knowledge of the Cisco CLI, setup should take approximately 20-30 minutes.

The pricing is comparatively expensive.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Cisco Ethernet switches for building on-site LAN projects and topologies. It depends on the switches I use. Usually, it's supposed to be a PoE, especially if we're supporting VoIP and wireless technologies. We deploy everything on-premises because I work with government entities in Singapore. 

Cisco Ethernet switches help build an office-based LAN. We seldom use Cisco Ethernet switches in data centers. We typically use Nexus switches for data centers. Compared to other vendors, Cisco switches are more like rugged switches. We seldom need to reboot those switches unless there's a bug or it was deployed on a different environment—like the racks aren't adequately ventilated.

Cisco switches have several valuable features like VLAN mapping. We seldom use that, but we find the security configurations helpful, like high availability with trading port channels and MAC filtering. 

Their firmware could be better secured against vulnerabilities or other exploits. Also, only selected catalyst switches are allowed to onboard to Cisco SD Access technology. 

I have used Cisco switches for 10 years.

I rate the hardware stability 10 out of 10. 

I rate Cisco Ethernet switches seven out of 10 for scalability. Unless the switch is submodular, you can remove those modules and plug in better ones. Scalability is harder if it's fixed hardware, but it's easier to scale a virtualized network appliance.

I rate Cisco support 10 out of 10. We usually purchase their highest level of support. 

Positive

Our setups are simple, but it depends on the complexity of the client's infrastructure and requirements. I'm more on the operations side, so everything is already deployed, but when we build a new network, I am involved in configuring the new switches. When we do an RMA for a faulty device, I configure it. It's usually a copy-paste of the configuration, but I can build the design from scratch.

The number of people required for deployment and maintenance depends on the size of the environment. A data center usually needs about five or six people to maintain it. You have two people on 12-hour shifts; the rest are senior staff. 

I'm not usually involved on the financial side, but the ROI is excellent based on the performance of Cisco products overall.

I rate Cisco Ethernet switches three out of 10 for affordability. They are expensive, but they're worth it. I believe in quality over quantity.

I rate Cisco Ethernet switches nine out of 10. I highly recommend Cisco switches, but the bottom line is that it depends on your budget.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are pretty reliable, and I have rarely seen one of them break. Cisco has a wide portfolio that fits every need.

Cisco's equipment is expensive, especially since it introduced the obligatory purchase of Cisco DNA.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 2008.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50,000 users are using Cisco Ethernet Switches in our organization.

I rate the solution’s scalability ten out of ten.

The solution’s technical support is pretty good.

I rate the technical support of Cisco Ethernet Switches an eight to nine out of ten.

Positive

I previously used Alcatel and Aruba HPE.

The solution’s initial setup is easy.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. Depending on the engineer's knowledge, a single switch can be deployed within twenty minutes.

Cisco's equipment is expensive, especially since it introduced the obligatory purchase of Cisco DNA. Cisco DNA is really, really expensive, and eliminating the necessity for purchasing it would reduce the solution's price. Some new Cisco switches support Cisco DNA, and some don't. You would have to buy more expensive switches to fully use Cisco DNA, which most enterprises simply don't do.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing ten out of ten.

I have utilized Cisco Ethernet Switches in production, regular office plans, and all kinds of environments. In enterprise environments, I have covered everything from offices to manufacturing and labs. We faced no challenges while integrating Cisco Ethernet Switches into our existing network infrastructure.

Cisco should definitely give customers the ability to choose whether they want Cisco DNA or not. Currently, customers need to choose Cisco DNA for at least three years, which is appalling. Customers are buying something they will never use. I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches to other users because of its reliability and simplicity.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

I have been using the newest line of Cisco switches, the 9300 series, for two or three years.

We have two different models for deployment. One is the SDN deployment model, which has to do with Software-Defined Networking and is the more recent.

The other is the traditional three-tier, via core access aggregation layer five switches with an Independent Architecture Designed environment or access layer switches where you just use them to connect users to a specific service. It depends on what the nature of the work would be and the scope of work. But generally, most traditional networks have three layers. You have switches in a core of the network, switches in the distribution or aggregation layer, or switches in the access layer. This is the Three-tier module. If it is a collapsed core then it would be just simply the core and the access.

A primary use case is you could use it to connect mostly end-users and host systems. Systems could be servers, systems could be printers, systems could be telephones, and systems could be video conferencing equipment. That's one end use of it.

Another is the use in the data center. Ethernet Switches can be used in a data center out to provide connectivity, wired connectivity for servers, database systems, platforms, other platforms systems, and storage systems. With Ethernet you could have different speeds, so you can have Ethernet running at 1Gig, you can have Ethernet at 10Gig, you can have Ethernet at 40Gig, and you have Ethernet at 100Gig. So, depending on the nature of connectivity, you have that in the data center, you can have that also in an office environment. Then you go up to have it in industrial space, monitoring of industrial machines and control systems. So again, Ethernet is widely used.

There are several situations where these switches are used. Most times if they want to move off the main site, or they want to move locations, or they want to have temporary spaces, they can use a switch. Temporary means they may want to expand connectivity from their network to a small branch office that is temporary. Temporary means they're going to run something there for six months and then after that the business won't be there.

With switches, you can expand your network with a connection aside but you can extend your network to a particular area. You can also develop a campus network, campus meaning you may have one building in there and then the company acquires another building, and then it's easy to connect the two buildings together with Fiber and a switch if you have that available. 

There is also multi-tenancy, if you're in a building when you have multiple floors, it's easy to extend the premises from one floor to another floor using a switch as well.

In terms of projects, technical projects, they are several, I mean even down to connectivity to third parties inside the data center. For example, you may find out that you need to connect to BT or you need to connect to your telco provider. Switches will facilitate your ability to connect to a third party to allow communications between two separate environments that are managed differently.

I've done projects where the switches are also used for translation. For example, one part is using Fibre, the other part is using Ethernet, and the switch can be used to communicate between the two technologies. The switch will transform the physical characteristics of the link from Fiber to Ethernet.

There are two things about this solution that I find valuable. One valuable feature is that you can string a number of switches together, and the fact that there are various methods to connect them, such as by stacking. A stack means that they operate as one switch spot. You have multiple physical switches in the stack. For example, you could have one particular physical switch and you can have many of them all connected together as if they're one switch.

Another valuable feature is that the switches can operate at different layers of the networking environment. You can have switches that operate at layer three, you can have layer four switches and also obviously layer two, data layer, is their normal operation.

These switches are versatile. They can operate as a router, but they can also operate as a switch as well. The fact that you can run routing protocols on them, and you can also run data link protocols, means that they are quite versatile enough.

At the moment the switches that you have can't scale because they've got their control plane and data plane in the same device. The problem with that is you're limited to the number of switches you can string along because of limitations with VLAN. VLAN does have limitations, but with Software-Defined Networking there is no limitation. This is bringing about changes in the networking field that are long-needed. Ultimately, I would like to see all of the switches support SDN.

Switches should be made stackable, even if they are not of the same model. Now stacking is another technology that a lot of switches can benefit from, but not all switches are capable of stacking. There are some switches that are capable of stacking, but not all switches. As a rule, in my view, I feel stacking should work between different switches and at the moment it doesn't. For example, if you want to build a stack, all the switches in the stack have to be literally the same. So that another area of technology which could be different. You could stack switches, even if they're not exactly the same, but they have a way of operating such that they can work together. It would be nice because it means people don't have to throw away things just because they can't meet what they want.

I think this solution is very stable.

These switches have been around for a long time. Before that, all the technologies used couplers, which were called BNC connectors, network taps, all those things that existed. Couplers that existed before the arrival of Ethernet, they didn't last even two, three years, whereas Ethernet has been around for more than fifteen years.

Ethernet will continue to be around, and it's a very stable technology in terms of the operation. As well, Ethernet is the way forward, and it will still be around for another ten or fifteen years.

Ethernet does not scale very well because you've got distance limitations. Ethernet can only run for about one hundred meters or less, so you have to use Couplers. This distance limitation is why we use Fibre. Fibre optics is actually a better technology than Ethernet, but it's more expensive. Everything about it, the equipment, the nature of the way the Fibre cables are prepared, is a lot more expensive compared to Ethernet.

Ideally, everybody would like to run Fiber switches because it's a better technology that carries more bandwidth. The high price is due in part to the components. All the components that make Fibre work are expensive to produce. It can be relatively cheap for what we use it for but overall, it's way more expensive than Ethernet. If it wasn't for that then Fibre would have been the best solution. Ethernet, as it is right now, the cost price point for Ethernet is very good, so it won't be going anywhere fast soon. In terms of scalability, don't have limits. If you want to scale, you need to use Fiber to scale.

In terms of users, the organization right now has more than a thousand, and the previous one had approximately five thousand.

With respect to user roles, some are call center personnel, some platform systems guys, some are software developers, some project managers, some are marketing managers, some are sales managers, and some are professional services. Department-wise you have your legal, HR, and your finance department.

To my knowledge, our business is focused on doing work for clients so I expect that our usage of Ethernet Switches will be expanding.

The technical support for this solution is very good. They're very responsive.

I have also used the Meraki MX switches, but they are more like routers and used to support the wireless systems for Meraki.

With respect to the initial setup, the complexity depends on the topology. Most times they're not complicated. What's complicated is if you need to use them as a layer three switch, then you could have some complex configurations to do. However, if it's layer two, which is data layer connectivity only, then it's easy. If it's layer three then it's a little more challenging because you combine layer two and layer three and it could involve routing protocols. It's a lot more complex. 

Generally speaking, it depends on the manner in which you want to use the switch. Some deployments took maybe two weeks, some three days, some a month, and some even up to three months.

When it comes to my implementation strategy, first of all, you have to get the physical hardware into the data center or location where it needs to be. Make sure the right structured cabling was in place to connect this equipment so that it can work in that environment. Both from a power perspective and from a cabling perspective. I got to cable this switch to other systems and make sure that the right type of cabling is in place. Also, I have to make sure of the configurations that I'm going to use and get them organized upfront. In other words, I have the configurations I am going to put on a device and the software version. 

Another important thing is the software version. Make sure that the version is the appropriate one to put on there. Ensure that it doesn't have bugs or things, the type of configuration I want to put on there doesn't have bugs or anything that could impact the operation of those configurations.

After that is complete, I make sure that all of the connectors or transceivers that I've brought are the right type of transceivers for the systems. I'm able to connect them onto the network. Now that's just the physical connectivity.

There are other things you would do in implementation to test that the switch is working fine once it's operational. There are other tests that you conduct like Ping test, IP test, or whatever to show basic connectivity exists to that switch from the management perspective. You may also have tools, such as monitoring tools that you would use. You would also configure the monitoring tools to be able to recognize that particular device on the network and maybe things like memory, CPU, all the things to do with power, all these environmental conditions around that device are being monitored as well.

Then obviously you've got documentation as part of it. If you're putting a new set of equipment in there, the site probably has existing documentation that needs to be updated to reflect the fact that the typologies changed or you're introducing new equipment into that topology. In some cases, you've done this all upfront before you start the implementation. While in some cases, some companies, for the rush of time they want you to implement first and then do the documentation later. So again, it's still part of that strategy. Implementation wise, that's the approach you would go with in my opinion. Obviously there are different implementation approaches, and the stuff we're talking about here is just hardware.

I am a specialist, and in most cases, I handle the implementation and deployment.

The time I would use another person is if the data center was far away when it's not conceivable that I would travel to that location. I'd probably use somebody from the data center or use a data center engineer who would set up the hardware. He would put the hardware in the rack, the network cage, or rack where the equipment is going to be located. He would help me physically screw the equipment, take it out of the box, and connect it into the cage, and then I'd give him instructions on where to put cable or where to plug the various cables that come with the equipment. So once he's done that, I'm able to remotely connect to the device.

Those are remote working situations where you're not physically able to go to the site and do the work there. Then yes, I would work with other people sometimes and give them some instructions on what I want to have done at that location.

What is happening in the industry is that they are separating two things that traditionally held back the growth of switches, which is the control plane aspect of the switch from the data point. What you're finding is that the newer generation of switches, you can control them with a different device separately from the switch itself. In terms of the improvements, the improvements that are going on right now, Software Defined Networking creates the basis for you to have switches that can scale, and can scale very well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

There are no additional features in the switch from Cisco. They are conventional switches that only provide basic Layer Two switching capabilities and do not have the advanced security features that newer switches, such as Fortinet offer. They simply forward data and do not have any other capabilities.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Ethernet Switches is its hardware.

The current state of Cisco Ethernet Switches leaves room for improvement, particularly in regard to central management and security. While they possess the capability to function as owners of Layer Two, they fall short in regard to security awareness. While there are some supplementary products available that can provide additional security measures, such as the deployment of virtual machines, these solutions are external and not integrated within the switch itself. For this reason, Cisco Ethernet switches could benefit from incorporating the same centralized management and security features as other companies, such as Fortinet, offer in their FortiSwitches. By being aware of potential threats such as MAC spoofing and ARP poisoning, the switch can provide a more comprehensive level of security.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for a very long time.

I've communicated with the technical support team of Cisco previously in regard to their switches. I have always been pleased with the support I have received from them. No matter what challenges I have encountered with their products, I have always been satisfied with their assistance. The support team has consistently demonstrated their readiness to assist and I have never encountered any issues with their support services. Thus, I can confirm that I have indeed had previous interactions with the Cisco support team.

The initial setup of Cisco Ethernet Switches is never easy.

The solution is highly expensive compared to other solutions. The prices get tripled when they arrived in my country of Angola.

I would recommend others use Arista, Fortinet, or Juniper switches.

The adoption of Cisco Ethernet switches in Angola was a result of various factors, including the popularity and widespread usage of the brand. Additionally, the impact of the research and advisory firm, Gartner, has played a significant role in the purchasing decisions of decision-makers. Despite the speaker's advice to not solely rely on Gartner's recommendations, the company's influence is perceived as prominent as they often feature the most expensive solutions at the top of their rankings.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven out of ten.

We don't work with the latest version, which is why I am currently conducting research. We wish to see if we can move from the existing solution to an upgrade. We have been using 2960 switches for a very long time, say... five, six or seven years, and they have reached the end of their lives, which is why I proposed a change. 

When it comes to switching routing, we have no doubts about Cisco. It's a robust solution. One cannot find latency, such as attenuations, even within our cables. It's really stable. In contrast, some other switches can switch over, but we found Cisco Ethernet Switches to be stable and robust, even taking into account Africa's infrastructure.

I would like for the solution to have more security features and be more user-friendly. It should have a GUI graphical user interface which would allow the person to interact with it. The look and feel should be addressed. As people are in the process of moving away from CLI, it should be something that anybody can manage.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for more than 10 years.

the solution is really stable. 

We may switch to another solution, although this will depend on the cost. The dollar has multiplied five times over the past ten years, which means that certain things are not affordable in dollars at the moment. I am not saying that the best product would be be cost prohibitive for us. This said, one's budget and the cost of materials must be weighed. 

Cisco is consistently at the top of its game when it comes to quickly routing our security. Other solutions with which I have experience are less so, such as concern identity service engines. The problem with this is the support. Switches are appliances that, once put in place, hardly require support. However, this is needed for firewalls, routers and other security appliances, but is hard to come by in Nigeria

I'm not saying that I am dissatisfied with Cisco's technical support, but I am looking at what is involved in reaching it and having the app escalated to the second party. 

Generally speaking, it is not possible to reach second-line support. One would usually reach the original equipment manufacturer at first-line support. Generally speaking, they would prefer not to escalate an issue. Take, for example, the Cisco security appliance we currently have deployed. It must be unplugged and we are not benefiting from the support that we need. 

The solution can be comparatively cheaper. 

I am currently in the process of comparing the solution with that of Huwei switches, which I know can be cheaper, taking into account the exchange rate with Yuan and the dollar increase in Nigeria. 

Although I am not looking for a cheaper solution, I am doing so for one that is affordable. 

There are between 2,000 and 2,500 people making use of the solution in our company.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches as a nine out of ten. 

We recently replaced the BGP router and L3 switches. We're planning to replace some other switches also. We are having 22 switches distributed through my location with 24 ports. All the users are connected to those. We will increase our usage as we expand all over India. 

Cisco switches are trouble-free. They are reliable, and their performance is excellent. 

We have supply issues when ordering switches. It used to be a minimum of six to eight weeks. Now it has become around six months. That's the only issue we have. 

I have used Cisco Ethernet switches for more than 10 years.

I give Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10 for stability.

I give Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10 for scalability.

Cisco support is excellent.

Setting up Cisco switches isn't too complex, but it isn't easy. It could be more straightforward. One engineer can complete the setup in two to four hours.

We engaged the vendor who supplied us and helped deploy the switches.

I rate Cisco Ethernet switches 10 out of 10.

We are a hospital. We use the solution in our endpoints. We have more than 2000 endpoints.

The tool is stable.

The solution is expensive. It is not cheap.

I have been using the solution for 12 to 13 years.

We have around 3000 users. The tool is used daily.

We get technical support from TAC.

Positive

We have three in-house engineers who deploy the product. We need three people for maintenance.

We are absolutely fine with Cisco products. The product is good, but it is expensive. It will be helpful if it is cheaper. Whenever we order anything, it takes a lot of time to reach us. Overall, I rate the tool a ten out of ten.