Cisco Nexus Reviews

The product is basically used for our entire phone system.

After implementing the product, it made things a lot easier. We have good quality as far as calls and it's pretty easy to roll out new updates. It is very accommodating to provide that for our contact center.

Quality is really the most valuable feature. Being able to interconnect components between different clusters around the globe gives us the flexibility we need. That pretty much makes what we do possible.

I don't really know any improvements that we would need right now as a company. I would say it would be nice to support more phone models in general. For us that doesn't matter as we really stick with one type of phone. There hasn't been a phone refresh — I think — in maybe five years, but I think that's kind of how Cisco rolls. They do have a 10 year run on phones.

Better monitoring would be a big thing to have. The RTMT (Real-time Monitoring Tool) is good, but I also know they're moving to a web-based solution so certain updates to current products won't be on the way. Being able to drill down and have better adaptivity going forward would be nice. But I think that concentrating on the web-based solution is their plan and the way they're going. I'm looking forward to seeing how that works out.

I think the solution is pretty stable. We are going to upgrade soon, but we've been on version 11 of Unified Communications Manager for two years. We usually try to upgrade every year, but we try to wait for a few SUs (Software Updates) and upgrade later on. We try not to be on the latest and greatest, in case of any bugs.

The scalability of the solution is very good. The only thing I don't like is that there's an 80-millisecond requirement between cluster servers. I have to have multiple clusters around the world: I can't just have one giant cluster. There are ways around that requirement, but I wish they could figure it out.

Cisco technical support is good now and has gotten better over the years. The Webex support can be a lot better as far as response. Sometimes I don't get responses for two or three days. But as far as technical support for other products, it's good.

Pretty much the product I always go to is Cisco, so that's my preference. I'm not new to the solution. It's consistent and does what we need it to.

The initial setup was straightforward. I'm the senior engineer so I've had to go through my bumps and bruises, but it's pretty much straightforward if you know what you're doing.

We didn't go with a vendor team for implementation, we did it ourselves. We do use a reseller, Continental Resource. They provide hardware for us and software licensing and all that.

We have definitely seen a return on investment as far as our contact center and when we build new offices, we can build them quickly.

I've never gone with any other type of phone systems. It pretty much has been Cisco all along.

I would rate this solution as an eight out of ten. I think that giving it a ten would be to place it ahead of every other solution and I can't be sure that's the case. I, personally, think it's above everyone else but I haven't tried all of the solutions in order to know first-hand.

I've always been told: you never get fired if you own Cisco.

The primary use case for Nexus in our company is for the data center. Everybody that has access to our remote server rooms throughout the campus wants 10G data ports all the way across. 

This product helps us by resolving the issue of not having to install fiber everywhere. If you use Nexus, it has the 10G copper ports. That way we can just use the current infrastructure. Cisco Nexus saves us money in the long run.

The most valuable feature of this solution is that it scales well. It supports a lot of servers. We don't have to come up with different designs for anything. That's the best part about it.

I would like to have the feature where you can install something like operf on it so you can do troubleshooting without having to configure operf on servers.

We had issues with Cisco Nexus during upgrades. When we first got the system, we were having some issues. The whole system crashed. 

The stability of this product works great.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is wonderful. It supports the whole data centers. We have no issues with scalability.

They need to understand that when we call them and have an issue, it's our production and sometimes they want us to do repairs that would cause other issues. That's the biggest problem.

We are a Cisco shop. We don't have to worry about learning different commands with Cisco Nexus. It still has different commands because of the platform, but it was a lot easier to understand than if you're going through a different company.

The initial setup was straightforward on Cisco's part. Other customers that we work with didn't understand their equipment.

We installed it ourselves. We just ordered our equipment through a reseller. They weren't involved in any on-site work.

It was Cisco or Juniper.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight. When trying to do the upgrades sometimes there are issues. Sometimes you get a bug that Cisco doesn't know about. When you try to explain it to them, they always say it's impossible and can't be replicated.

You need to understand all the options, the servers and different applications you can run, and how Cisco Nexus supports the overall picture.

The solution is our aggregation switch. We have all our data services, and users (not end-users) services going through our Nexus. It connects our firewalls and it connects other switches and makes our load balances work. Basically, we were given the switch and then we configured it and we will put it in the network and we maintain it.

The solution seems to be quite stable. We have had to upgrade recently as we were on an engineering release of code, and we don't tend to have problems with the Nexus. 

You can scale the product.

Technical support seems to be okay.

The solution could be improved in general in all aspects. 

When it comes to technical assistance, you cannot speed up things. You can try to escalate, however, there's a process. You have not got them on speed dial. You need to wait.

It would be ideal if there was better integration with various other platforms. 

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been six years.

The stability of the solution is great. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. the performance is reliable. 

The solution can scale.

The product provides services for thousands of our customers. If we look at Nexus and the media portals, then we've got millions of customers that will use the end service. That all goes through the Nexus F5.

In terms of technical support, we would go through the third party who would contact Cisco. It's fine. It works quite well at the moment. It would be nice if they could be quicker.

I did not handle any of the initial setup. I can't speak to if it was complex or straightforward. 

I can't speak to the pricing as I am not in procurement. Once it gets delivered, we'll put it in the network and then we'll configure it and then operate it. We are in operations. We don't directly handle licensing.

We are a customer and an end-user.

It's my understanding that we are using version 9, however, I cannot speak to if what we are on is the latest version or not. 

In our organization, there are hundreds of engineers. There are multiple teams. I work in a team that looks after the data center and we are on-premises, although there is also a cloud team.

From an operations perspective, when I look at service availability and the number of failures, I'd say the solution is probably about a seven out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users. It is tried and tested in our network, and it works well. It could work for other companies.

I use the solution in the customer's companies. I have used many different version of the solution. 

I find all the data center features to be most valuable, such as VXLAN and OTV. The ACI and FEX connectivity are good features too. Cisco is refining the features all the time and you can see this in all the different vendors.

They could improve on having different technologies between product models. The management dashboard could be better if it could handle the Catalyst and the Nexus at the same time. If Cisco could find management connectivity between the DMA center and the ACI connectivity this would be helpful.

I have been using the product for more than ten years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the scalability good with this product.

The support we received was excellent.

I have worked previously with Catalyst version 6500, 4500, and 3750 series, most of them.

The setup of the solution was easy.

The price of the product is reasonable.

In all the benchmarks and testing that I did, I found the best solution to be Cisco. I recommend the product. They have a good product with all the features that are required. 

I rate Cisco Nexus a nine out of ten.

We are using the Cisco Nexus for switching. We use the product for LAN switching, overall switching, and for the data center.

We needed to invest in Cisco solutions because of the Cisco environment. To change that would require some additional learning from our resources. That would be a challenge.

With Cisco, you have the continuity. Upgrade changes have been very good.

We are a Cisco shop. We have continuity with Cisco, which provides a very high-end solution. Converting into digital services, we're in a position to provide lifecycle management.

In future releases, it would be good to have more management on those devices.

Cisco needs to provide more training.

The stability, from a civilian perspective, is excellent.

Scalability depends on when there's no hardware available. We just add another rack and another switch. From an overall perspective, it's a very good product

The TAC, i.e. the technical support for the product, is excellent. That's what Cisco is known for and that's why we like them.

Before, we were all Cisco. Whenever there is a new product, we look at it.

Setup is fairly straightforward. We are a Cisco shop. This is for a lifecycle upgrade from the previous generations, i.e. 3750/3850 to 9000. It's excellent. We are using the 3700.

The return of investment is excellent for the lifecycle. The support gives us a level where we are already in line with the future. 

The licensing is the area that we are working that's a challenge. With smart licensing, it's all new to us. It used to be, we purchased something and the license was IP-based.

With advanced services, you go in and add more depth or details to the license.

I would rate this product with an 8/10 because it is an excellent product but the licensing is the problem. Everything else is good.

I would get as much training as you can.

We use the solution for the data center.

We are using the vPC and FEX. The integrations are valuable.

The pricing must be improved.

I have been using the solution for four to five years.

There are no bugs or glitches. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

We have two to three users. I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment requires two to three months. It’s a heavy setup. Around three to four people were involved in the setup.

I rate the pricing an eight out of ten.

We are planning to deploy Cisco ACI. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

This solution manages our data center and is our core infrastructure switch. All of our firewalls and application servers terminate into the 5K.

The most valuable feature is its flexibility. You can put different blades in it to give scalability, but it is older technology.

This solution is only scalable to a degree.

This is a very expensive product.

Areas in which the solution have room for improvement are the interface, management, and reporting. You still have to go deep into the CLI to find issues.

This is a very stable solution. I have a separate model, a 7K, that has been up and running for seven and a half years.

The scalability of this solution is limited. You can only add so much hardware capacity to them, and because it's hardware based, you can't get the new features sets without putting new switches in.

Technical support is very robust. The Nexus line is the backbone of Cisco's data center. Anytime I have had to call technical support for anything, they have been able to assist us.

As a solution reaches end-of-life you replace it. We're using the Nexus 5K right now, and we're probably going to start looking at the 9Ks as these reach end-of-life.

The hardware that existed pre-5K was replaced before I joined the company.

The initial setup took place before I joined the company.

We used CBTS to assist us with our implementation.

This is a solid, reliable solution, but it is very expensive and it can only scale to a degree.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We are using this solution in the redesign of our data center network. Specifically, to provide an aggregation point for our data center services.

This solution provides our organization with more business continuity and high availability. This is because we can build them in ways with technology, like VPC, to make sure that our network is constantly up and available to our end users.

The biggest benefit to this solution is a high port density with high bandwidth. A big strength is the high bandwidth backplane, line rate speeds, and switching and routing packets.

We have uncovered things about some of the features where there is room for improvement.  

• There are limitations on some of the lower level 9K solutions where you can't do the same things that you would normally be able to do, like for instance the number of static maps that you can configure on it.
• There are limitations between different product IDs that I do not really understand, and I don't think that there is a really good reason for.

This is an extremely stable solution. I would say that heeding or taking note of the software versions that Cisco recommends is probably a good idea because that's where you find the most stable features. When you do that, or you follow the low level, baseline requirements, it is very stable.

The 9K series is very scalable because you have multiple different PIDs that allow you to put them where you want them. They can be on the core, your access, or your aggregational layer. You can do a lot of different things with them. They're a very scalable switching solution.

Cisco technical support is much like any other. The first level is often a little bit laboring to get through that process, but once you get to their second or third level of support, they are very knowledgable about the solution.

If you're dealing with a bug or a feature that you're not really understanding, it often takes a day to get through that process. If on the other hand, it is a situation where you have a priority one network down then you can generally jump through the ranks pretty quickly.

Our existing network had been neglected for a long time before I joined the company. We wanted to become more relevant with the times, knowing that we're pushing a lot of stuff to the edge, trying to get higher bandwidth to our core.

We were comfortable with Cisco's technology and Cisco's footprint, so we started by getting some information from them. After this, we began to have regular meetings with them to discuss our design and how it would be implemented.

I think that the initial setup would be complex for someone that does not know the technology. You do have to know some of the underlying technologies in order to use this solution because it's not something that you can just unbox and start using. There is a learning curve.

We purchased the product through a reseller, MTM Technology, and they are very good. We have a long relationship with them.

We are deploying the solution with our in-house team.

All of our costs including subscription, licensing, and support services are bundled together, and the cost is approximately $100,000 USD per year.

We were pretty focused on Cisco. That is where we wanted to go.

We are using this solution in a very specific use case right now. I do see more flexibility and availability, but for us, a pretty small network, I haven't really unlocked a lot of the features.

My advice to anybody looking to implement this solution is to take your time in finding the right design. I have worked with Cisco for a long time, and I've worked with other manufacturers like HP, Dell, and Arista. I think that Cisco is definitely the leader in the market, but I do think that if you rush through the design process then you might find yourself making decisions prematurely. 

This is a good solution, but there is some room for improvement on some of the things that we have discovered.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.