Cisco Nexus Reviews

We need a stable network, which is why we use this solution.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its stability.

I would like to see better monitoring actions supported in the next release of this solution. An overview of what is going on with the system would be helpful.

The stability of this solution is very good.

In terms of scalability, this solution is very good.

I have never used their technical support.

Our previous solution was no longer supported, which is why we changed it.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We used a consultant to assist us with our implementation, and our experience with them was very good.

We only considered Cisco.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution has allowed our organization to grow. Our last platform was the legacy Cisco 6509, which did not have virtualization built in. We now have one box that does multiple services.

The most valuable feature is the flexibility that it has with the layer-two switching.

Its speed, as well as the ability to expand it, are also very valuable.

There are still bugs in the system that need to be fixed.

Technical support could be better.

This solution still hinders on some of the old technology base. It seems like bugs are still being brought in as customers are changing how they want to connect or how fast they're trying to connect stuff.

The scalability of this solution is ok. Everything can be a little bit better on scalability, but it does an ok job.

Technical support for this solution is middle-tier. It could be better.

Sometimes you get people that know about the products themselves, and the hardware, but don't understand my use case or a customer's use case. They understand it from a product platform, but not real-world actions.

We were using the Legacy Cisco 6509, but it did not have virtualization built in.

The initial setup of this solution is pretty straightforward.

If you came from the Legacy OS, it is easy to access and move around, even though the command lines are a little bit different.

We used an integrator to assist us with our deployment.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

In my previous company, we relied on this solution as a part of the data center core switch. Everything inside the data center was connected through this unit.

This solution has helped the data center in the bank's infrastructure to expand over the past ten years. Both the reliability and scalability of this solution helped to support this growth.

The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and reliability.

Scalability is important as the business moves forward. As the number of bank branches grows, the traffic grows. You need to rely on a solid Cisco product in the data center to support this.

Enhancing the software-defined level of this solution would empower it.

While I am not a technical person, I can comment on this solution's stability from a management perspective because I keep my eyes on the incidents. I have to look at all of the incidents that are reported through the data center. I can't remember having any incident raised regarding this product.

From this perspective, I can say that stability is good.

This solution is quite scalable, although this product comes in different families including an enterprise-level version and a mid-level version. Scalability depends on how the switch has been configured and the technical specifications that are related to it.

Technical support is part of Cisco's overall goodwill.

The support level is good and it is reliable, as well. It is also quite convenient for us as a financial institution.

The choice to move to this solution was based on our business strategy. It is a top-down approach, where the business strategy is passed down and the technical architecture is evaluated. After this is complete, a decision is made to either invest in a new solution or continue to rely on the old one.

In our case, this was the solution that we needed to accommodate our business strategy.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

Something like this always goes through a pre-planning stage. Kicking off the project requires that all of the prerequisites are in place. All of the information is gathered and the final scope is identified. This can be something that is straightforward or very complex.

In the bank that I have been working with, we were building the infrastructure from scratch. This is the reason it has been a straightforward project, rather than a complex one.

We had a very reliable Cisco partner implement this solution for us. Their name is Raya Integration, and they are one of the dominant Cisco partners across Egypt.

We considered both Cisco and Juniper for our infrastructure. My experience with Cisco over the past twenty years has been good. Also, this specific product is both reliable and scalable, which were all things that we considered when we adopted this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for our data center layer two, layer three, infrastructure.

Our main data center has been using this solution for the past twelve months and we have had zero outages. Before that, when we were using the Catalyst 6500 series, that was not the case. The stability of this solution is a major win. 

The most valuable feature is stability because in a data center you really need that.

The consolidation of all of the layer two ports into one rack is very valuable.

I would like to see more on-device programmability, as it seems to be lacking in this platform.

The EEM has limited capabilities compared to the Catalyst 9300 series, so this can be improved.

I would like to see better support for the newer front end tools, such as the DNS center.

Stability and availability is a definite plus on the Nexus platform. It seems to have better HA capabilities compared to the older platforms.

The scalability of this solution is better than that of the traditional models. You can always add more 2k switches to a 5k underlying chassis and increase the number of ports without any other configuration. There is no additional configuration required for FEX ports.

Technical support for this solution has always been the same.

The old solution was at end-of-life.

We were using the traditional Catalyst 6500 switches with the traditional iOS. It didn't provide us with 10-gigabit ports in the data center, which is why we switched to Nexus.

The initial setup was a little bit more complex because it was a new technology that we were adopting. The learning curve was a little steeper. However, the actual deployment was pretty straightforward.

We used a reseller, World Wide Technology, to help with our deployment. Our experience with them was very good.

We have seen ROI in terms of support and business continuity.

We are a Cisco shop, so we didn't look for an alternative platform. We knew that we were going to use Cisco.

My advice for anybody implementing this solution is to train their support staff on the Nexus product before deployment, and not after the fact. Once you deploy, if the support staff has to learn while on the job then it may cause issues. It is good to invest in training prior to the implementation, especially on this platform because it is very different than the traditional iOS.

The software upgrades are also different from that of the traditional Catalyst switches, so if you are not used to doing them on this platform then you have to be careful.

The other thing that I can say is that the scalability and stability of this solution have improved when compared to previous products.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for our networking.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its speed.

Currently, the platform is heavy. I would like to see a lighter platform.

This is a stable product.

This solution is definitely scalable.

The technical support group for this solution is very helpful.

Prior to this solution, we used older Cisco products, and we wanted to upgrade to newer technology.

This initial setup of this solution was very simple.

We implemented this solution in-house.

We did not evaluate vendors other than Cisco.

This solution works well and I would recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

This solution provides all of the routing and searching features that we need. We use it for internal use, rather than resell it to our customers.

The most valuable feature for us is the VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) support. We are using it in the aggregation layer.

Some of the DHCP features need improvement.

The stability of this solution is good.

I think that this solution scales well.

The price of this solution is good when compared to others in the market.

When we purchased the hardware, the software license came with it.

We did not evaluate other vendors before choosing this solution.

This is a pretty solid product that complies with our design and gives us what we need.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The entirety of our network infrastructure is Cisco-based, and our voice infrastructure comes across that as well. I handle the Unified Communications. 

This solution has drastically improved our organization.

Prior to implementing this solution, our corporate campus was the only place that we had Voice service in our network. Over the past two years, we have brought Cisco Voice to every single one of our offices and stores, nationwide. Essentially, we have unified all of those communication links between stores and our corporate office to support those stores.

For the stores, it has made life simpler for them. They need only press a button to speed dial into a support desk, where before they were totally dependent on an outside POTS line that may not have been available when they needed it. We've also reduced their costs, in that rather than every single satellite office dialing long distance numbers to reach the corporate office for support, the calls now come right across the LANs.

In terms of mitigating incidents, this solution has reduced incidents of lost time by approximately thirty percent.

This solution has saved us both time and money because we now have the ability to control all of these telephony devices that are deployed nationwide. It is simple for us to make changes remotely, rather than having to deploy somebody to go and make the changes. The time that we spent helping people who are in remote sites is minimal now compared to before, so it is definitely an improvement.

The most valuable feature is the flexibility that we have had, working with our network team to get voice implemented. 

There is always room for improvement.

This solution is absolutely stable. Our uptime is wonderful. It is so much that I actually enjoy not being called after hours.

Technical support for this solution has been absolutely wonderful.

We did not have a voice network infrastructure in our stores and we wanted to support it. However, our existing equipment was antiquated and it had to be upgraded. We were still using Cisco equipment, but it was dated and did not have support for voice and the other things that are required today.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. The implementors that we would source to assist us knew exactly what they were doing. They were not stalled with questions, so it just worked.

We used an integrator to handle part of our implementation, and their service was really good.

Cisco is not stopping in terms of adding support for new features. They are continuing to innovate their product and make it better for everybody.

This is a solution that has made my life much simpler. I can relax in the evening knowing that the solution is stable.

In fact, the biggest lesson that I have learned from using this solution is that we waited too long to deploy it in our stores. For a long time, the stores struggled every day, and it's a good thing that we've got a management team who realized that. They wanted to make things better for the employees that are working in our offices, the customer-facing people. I only wish that we had done it sooner.

My advice for anybody looking to implement a similar solution is to go with Cisco.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

For the 9300 switches, we use them specifically for IPv6 routing in this particular instance, although there are plans to deploy them in a more general variety of switch-type use cases.

This specific use case is fairly mundane. A Nexus switch is a nice, standard part that you could reuse elsewhere. The idea was to utilize this to fix a problem.

We have a bigger solution, which also involves Nexus switches in ACI mode. This appliance is kind of the stock gap until then.

We value the combination of performance and experience with Legacy Cisco switching products, including Nexus.

In terms of the context of this deployment, Cisco Nexus did everything it needed to do. 

I'd like to see this be wrapped into ACI. I'll be more comfortable when it's had more deployments. There's more knowledge out there on how to configure it.

The Cisco Nexus is a big change. I'm not currently looking for new features. I am looking to other customers with good experiences deploying in ACI mode.

Of these devices, in particular, the stability is good. Although with the Nexus line generally, we've had a couple of bad experiences recently. 

I have a general concern that Cisco Nexus may be declining. There's a couple of really bad incidents lately. Probably luck of the draw.

The scalability of the solution is well beyond anything I would ever need. Somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 50,000 to 60,000 nodes is our requirement, so not huge from the Cisco perspective.

The technical support with Cisco is sometimes awesome and sometimes terrible. Not all TAC engineers have the same kind of attitude and availability to help solve the problem. 

Unfortunately, I find a necessary skill for Cisco engineers working with Cisco equipment is to know how to handle TAC. If you know how to handle them and you're willing to step up yourself by ensuring that you escalate properly, you can get a good response at TAC.

But if you allow the reverse to happen, you will usually get a bad experience.

Management is in the habit of buying Cisco. I like the product. I don't dissuade them from that.

The initial setup with the Nexus switch is somewhere in the middle. I hate to call a Nexus switch simple, but at the same time, it's got a lot of platform legacy. You can reapply your knowledge from what you've done before. 

I don't call it complex. I don't call it simple either. Somewhere in the middle.

The license for Cisco Nexus is one year to three years, in this case for the SMARTnet. It is a price per unit, in terms of this specific appliance. That's something I could see Cisco doing a better job with, i.e. managing SMARTnet contracts for customers.

Too much of the onus is on the customer to manage their SMARTnet contracts. They always do a bad job at that. It's a miss for the customers because they don't have the protection that they need. It's a miss for Cisco because they don't have the revenue. 

Cisco needs to rely more on its distributors to take on that role, but I don't think they always do.

Start with a business problem that needs solving and a recognition that the current solutions don't meet the needs. Most of our clients are using a solution similar to Nexus already. Generally, amongst my customer base, it's mostly Catalyst and Nexus.

On a scale of one to 10, I would rate this product an eight to nine. Part of that is my recent experience with Nexus overall. My gut instinct is it's probably lower than it was a couple of months back.

Look at Nexus, but also take a look at Catalyst, depending on what it is specifically being used for. Catalyst is probably an easier device, but Nexus at least should be better for a data center. Look at both.