Cisco Ethernet Switches Reviews

I am using the Cisco Ethernet Switches in the food industry.

Cisco Ethernet Switches could improve if they removed the command line interface and replaced it with a better GUI. It is too difficult at the moment, we always need to figure out the commands.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately six months.

The stability of Cisco Ethernet Switches is very stable.

Cisco Ethernet Switches are scalable.

We have approximately 250 people using the Cisco Ethernet Switches.

I did not have any experience with the technical support of Cisco Ethernet Switches.

We were previously using Aruba switches and we migrated to Cisco because of the groups' direction, it was not a fault of Aruba switches. Aruba switches are great. We were working with Aruba for 10 years without any problem, and they gave us a lifetime warranty for the switches. If we had a faulty switch they would give us new ones.

The service from Aruba was very good, but I think that Cisco solutions are more professional for something VLANs. I didn't try Aruba with VLANs, however, we make all of our VLANs with Cisco.

I prefer Aruba solutions because they are easier to use.

The initial setup was for Cisco Ethernet Switches was straightforward.

I rate the implementation of Cisco Ethernet Switches a four out of ten.

The implementation of Cisco Ethernet Switches was done with a partner and our experience was very good.

We are in a manufacturing environment running 24 hours a day. We have a dedicated team of three that works on the switches and network.

We have a one-year license to have the Smart Net Total Care service. The license to use the Cisco Ethernet Switches comes with the initial purchase of the solution.

I rate the price of Cisco Ethernet Switches a two out of five.

The cost of Cisco Ethernet Switches is expensive.

I have evaluated other switches, such as Aruba.

My advice to others looking to purchase a Cisco Ethernet Switch is the best use case depends on many factors. For example, the number of users, details of the company, type of network, and how large the network is. If the company is small to medium-sized I would recommend Aruba. For larger companies, I would recommend Cisco Ethernet Switches.

I rate Cisco Ethernet Switches an eight out of ten.

We are a financial institution and we use Cisco Ethernet Switches as part of our network infrastructure.

The Cisco product range is quite good and they have a lot of features available.

For each of the features that I want to use on a Cisco device, we have to purchase a license. For example, if we want the security features then we have to purchase that in another bundle. The price becomes more expensive than products from Juniper.

The local support resources for Cisco in Bangledesh are very poor and should be increased.

We have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches for approximately three years.

Cisco products are stable.

Cisco Ethernet switches are scalable. We have approximately 1,500 people using them in the company. We have a plan to increase our usage of Cisco by implementing an SD-WAN.

Cisco technical support on the backend, from the OEM, is very good. They are very experienced. However, the local partner and technical support in Bangledesh need to be improved.

Currently, I am also using a Juniper product. The split between Cisco and Juniper devices is approximately 50/50.

We are switching to Juniper because they are more cost-effective.

One of the reasons that we still have Cisco devices is that they have offerings that are not available from Juniper. Juniper is good, but they only have routing and switching products, whereas Cisco has products such as Cisco ASA that we use. In that regard, Cisco can provide more value-added.

The initial setup is really straightforward.

Our deployment took quite a long time. It was between three and six months.

We have six people in our network team and they are in charge of maintenance.

Our local Cisco partner assisted us with the implementation and deployment.

The technical person from the local partner was not as skilled as we expected, which is something that should be improved.

This is quite an expensive product.

We do not pay on a monthly basis. The fees are included when you purchase the device.

When we want an extra feature then we need to purchase another license bundle.

We are looking to gain some experience in using Mikrotik routers and switches.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The features that I have found most valuable with Cisco switches are that once you get your configuration you can rest assured that it will work. The OS is not going to be failing intermittently or anything like that. Once you get your configuration end-goal right, the firmware and the OS are usually stable enough to work a long time without support. Support is only needed once in a while. My experience is that the Cisco switches are usually rocket.

In terms of what could be improved, there is the bulk issue that is sometimes experienced with the Cisco products we've used. I don't know how it could be possible to be done, but it would be very good if there was an automated patching system. It would be a very big and difficult one, because some of these routers or switches or products are not even within an internet environment. This is especially limited with the switches. Routers can be connected to the internet and switches might not even have internet access and might just be for the local area network. If it has an internet connection, that would be great and if it has an automated parking code inside of the POE this would help them to patch without the user's input.

In the next release, I would like to see bulk fixing. That is basically what I do now. If we could have an automated patch for Cisco to just be standard for patching switches or routers or firewalls by default without the input of anyone adjusting, that would be great.

I have been using Cisco Ethernet Switches since 2009, so probably for 13 years now.

In terms of scalability, normally you have a 24 port switch or a 48 port switch, which are fixed to scalability. So you can't really go beyond what has been provided. If it's a 24 switch, it's 24 users, if it's 48 it's 48, except if you're using the switch as an extender for a wireless device. That is a different conversation, but if you're using it in a LAN environment and for a connected, wired connection, then you can't scale.

But you can connect multiple switches to themselves and stack them and make it one switch depending on your design.

The setup is pretty easy. It's usually easy to configure, especially when you are using it for basic switching. It is usually easy to configure the VLAN, the PTPs and all of that.  The major work lies with your architecture and your design and how you want to use the solution, because once you get the architecture right, then your configurations and all will be very simple. But if you don't, you might have to do a lot of work when it comes to configuring.

A lot depends on how you configure it from the beginning. It's going to influence how it's going to work the rest of the time.

When it comes to switches and routers, I will always prefer Cisco over any other.

On a scale of one to ten, I'll give Cisco Ethernet Switches a seven because switch-wise, I think Juniper switches are also very good in performance. Especially the high end switches.

We have distributed locations, and we have them at different locations behind firewalls.

Being able to deal with multiple VLANs to segment the network logically is the biggest feature for us. The management of these switches is okay for us. These switches work very well, and they meet our needs. 

The pricing can be improved to make them more suitable for SMBs.

In terms of features, they tick all the boxes as of now. That could be because we tailor the solution around the product. I have not seen anything that pulls me back or is not working well for me. However, there could be better integration with the network monitoring systems. It doesn't mean it is currently not there, but there could be better discoverability with some of the network monitoring systems to be able to have more visibility. When you're setting up a control room, you can have more visibility into what is going on in the network. It has been doing that, but it can do that more.

I have been using this solution for over five or six years.

Their stability is very good. Even when they are reaching the end of life, they still have a lot of life in terms of stability. They are very durable and stable. They can run for a lot more time, but for a business, security is important, and it becomes necessary to upgrade to new models and let these devices die. We have to upgrade to the latest models because of company policy, but there is no problem with their durability or robustness.

We usually over-spec, and there is no problem with scalability. They're able to handle everything very well. In all the fields where we are using them, we haven't encountered a situation that they are not able to handle. They work fine.

In our company, they are being used at different levels. They're basically serving everyone, and there are about 500 people in our company. They serve right up to the data center.

In terms of our plans to increase its usage, a lot of discussions are going on about moving to the cloud, SD-WAN, and things like that. With the ongoing situation of the pandemic, there have been discussions about scaling down the local network and moving towards service provision for remote workers, as opposed to on-prem. We might scale down the local network and move things to the cloud and other remote access technologies.

I've not interacted much with them because I've not had a lot of issues. If there is anything, I get a lot of information from FAQs and online forums. It does not really go to the point where I've to go to Cisco's support desk. There is a lot of good documentation. They've done a good job with the documentation of it. It has always helped me.

We didn't use any other solution previously on this site. It was our go-to solution from the start because of its security and market sentiment. At different locations for different clients, we use different products, but this is what we have been using on our site.

It was straightforward. I have a lot of experience with them in different organizations and through my own career path, so it wasn't hard for me. I'm used to them.

The project was deployed in phases. Most of the time was spent on the server-side of things. The setup time for switches was very less. It took two to three hours to get them up and running. It was not a problem.

It was done in-house. We have in-house expertise.

We have four people for its deployment and maintenance, and we are able to handle it well. There are two technicians from the IT department, and the rest of them are in the management role, but when it comes to the deployment, they are able to do the physical work.

Quality comes at a price. I've been around the block a bit, and I know that good quality comes at a price. However, some of the organizations don't have big budgets, so you have to develop different solutions for them. They don't have the budget to get some of the high-end features. Cisco can consider providing entry-level hardware to suit SMBs.

I have complete confidence in this solution. It is my go-to solution when I'm organizing any network for a client. Of course, for many people, its cost could be an issue, but when you consider running a stable implementation and the risk of downtime in case of any issue vis-a-vis the initial purchase cost of the equipment, it is a no-brainer. I would suggest people take this route. If someone has the budget, they shouldn't skimp on it.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

I'm a senior security network engineer and we have a gold partnership with Cisco. 

The valuable features of this solution are bandwidth, speed, low latency, and performance. Those are all features we need for our data center. 

I'd really like to see more programmability for the switches. We need more Python scripts because what we currently have doesn't cover all the configurations in the switch configuration. It would be helpful to have ASIC fast switching. I'd like higher speed and we're always looking for additional bandwidth.

We've been using this solution for over three years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution becomes more scalable as more switches are connected to the ACI fabric. We currently have 2,000 users and this is increasing all the time. We just increase our switches as our users increase. 

If there are issues regarding the iOS or something similar, we open a ticket with Cisco tech support and they are very helpful. We're able to deal with most issues ourselves. 

The initial setup is relatively easy although I'd prefer if it were automated. If we have 100 sites and every site has nine or ten switches, it's a lot of work. For a small or medium implementation, it doesn't take long but for the enterprise sites, it takes some time. The initial configuration on one switch takes about 30 minutes. 

We pay an annual license fee and there are no additional costs other than when there is hardware failure. 

I recommend this solution, it's very dependable.

I rate this solution eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for our data center and edge switches. Like a lot of companies, we use (in the data center) core switches on Layer 3, and (on the edge) switches in Layer 2. 

Cisco as a whole is flexible. 

The solution can be configured to our specifications.

The solution allows you to monitor CPU utilization and memory usage.

You can only configure both switches and routers via the command-line. They should work to take on the newer HP and Aruba approach where you can configure from a URL or command line.

It could be useful if they developed the GUI interface to enable us to configure all features such as VLANs, port assignment, routing, DSP, through the GUI. That would make it easier for beginners. 

Cisco products are expensive compared to any other solution. Now, there are many competitors that give the same level of services - such as Juniper or Aruba.

We've been using this solution for about eight years. It's been a long time.

The solution is quite stable. Cisco offers very reliable products. All of their hardware is quite reliable.

The solution is quite scalable. However, the pricing is a concern. If I need to add switches, I tend to look at cheaper options like Juniper or HP.

In my organization, there were about 150 switches or more. That covered about 4,000 users and covered both wireless and LAN, wired and wireless.

We may not continue to use it, as it is expensive and there are alternatives.

There are many vendors in Egypt. Therefore, we can always find someone who can help us with technical support.

On top of that, we've found the website to be quite good in terms of finding documentation to help with troubleshooting.

We also use Aruba switches. I've used HP in the past as well.

Depending on the project for configuration, and considering deploying only one switch at a time, it may take about five minutes to handle one switch. Aruba, in contrast, might take ten minutes.  

We had about four people who handled the deployment.

The pricing of the solution is quite high. There are lots of comparable products out there that are nowhere near the cost. 

We're just customers and end-users.

We use Cisco switches at Layer 2 and Layer 3.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend Cisco to other organizations. After using HP, I found that they had just as good of a product with more features and better pricing.

In general, I would rate this product at a seven out of ten.

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.

I use the product for endpoint and server connectivity. I also use it as a core switch.

The product is the best in the market. It always works whether the environment is cold or hot. The product is pretty much reliable and stable.

The technical support should be improved.

I have been using the solution for seven years.

I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

The scalability of the solution depends on the models. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

I have contacted support many times. The support is good, but not that good.

Neutral

The initial setup is very straightforward and simple.

The solution is not too expensive.

If someone uses the solution for the first time, they must know that network design is the most important part. They must pick the right models. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.