Cisco Nexus Reviews

It helped us have fewer physical interfaces by being able to share it with multiple virtual contacts. By doing that, we can have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup. So it helps us to have a smaller footprint.

The most valuable feature of the 7700 series is probably that it lets you have multi-context, and also VPC setup, where you have two logical devices that are still separate in terms of management planes but have shared virtual port channels.

They should make sure that the back address auto is baselined. I think it might even be baselined, so it might be that one of our team members had messed that up, but it just wasn't a very straightforward command. You should have multi-context, multi-port channel enabled on the underlay of the Firepower. The way the Firepower firewalls work is they have a management plane, and then you make the virtual ASAs on the Firepower, where you're assigning multiple interfaces or core channels on there. have fewer devices and fewer physical interfaces, yet retain a more extensive logical setup.

It has been very stable so far.

It has been very scalable, from what we've seen.

The few times we have had to talk to technical support it's been pretty decent.

The previous solution we used was the Catalyst 6506 series. We switched to 7706 at that time because it was pretty much comparable to that. It was either a 6506 or moving to a 6807, which was the Catalyst's next series for the next device. The difference between the Catalyst and the Nexus was that Catalyst was doing VSS, where you kind of had two physical switches acting as one logical switch. We had had some issues, especially with upgrades of VSS, so we were trying to avoid using VSS. The 7706 is just more stable than what the Nexus 9000 was at the time we were purchasing this. The Nexus 9000 wasn't fleshed out enough yet to use as the core, so it just made sense to go with the 7706 instead.

The initial setup was pretty complex, mostly because of our environment, having to do multi-context. That's where you have a lot of different logical routes that are in one physical device, and it can get kind of complex trying to think about how to set all that up. You really have to whiteboard it out a lot.

We talked with a lot of vendors, such as Juniper, FortiGate, and some of the other players. Cisco was our chosen solution, because of the level of support and familiarity we had. A lot of us trained in Cisco.

When we were purchasing this, it was the best solution. Now, you might want to look at the Nexus 9000 solution, or maybe the Catalyst 9000 series. You might consider your environment and see what you need. Do you need personal contacts and device management? Or do you need devices acting as one switch for easy management? It just depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for more of the software-defined stuff, and this is going to be in your data center, or maybe you want ACIs, then you're obviously going to be looking at Nexus 9000 there. It just depends on your situation.

I would rate this solution as a nine or ten of ten.

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.

Our main use of Cisco Nexus is as our data center core switch.

Nexus provides inner redundancy. It allows us to perform updates on individual switches, while still maintaining reliability and uptime on the server.

Overall, I wish it was a more intuitive OS.

It's a stable product. It definitely holds up the workload that we put it through. Overall, I would say it's a great product.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

It's a good return on my investment because of its reliability that it provides with our main PCs, our dual homes on our devices.

Buy what you know that's going to be the best value in the long run, because if you don't know it, then it's going to be hard.

It's the only one I know that allows us to dual home our servers in our HyperFlex environment, but still maintaining our virtual IP address and such.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten.

Our primary use for Cisco Nexus is for storage.

It helps for data servers.

It provides a very flexible connection to a server. When you go into history and the VPC, it provides a very flexible connection from it. Once a server goes down I can handle it easily. So the network actually keeps quality even if onsite it is down.

There is some room for improvement when it comes to the frequency on the network.

I don't work in security so I do not deal with this subject. I just make the network available. I think it's probably good. From the networking point of view, we just provide them the network that is going to be Cisco 9000, but they are using the servers. I have not gotten any complaints. We just deployed less than two months ago.

The technical support is very good. I really like the way Cisco handles support. I am building this 9000 network. I had a lot of issues because of the vast complications you find setting up a network. I knew I could get help from Cisco.

We switched to 400G. We provide 100G on our network. I needed something which can carry 100, so next time this has that option. That is the reason we went with this partner.

As a customer of Cisco, we always have had meetings with them on their new products. We tell them what kind of solution we are looking for and Cisco says for this solution you need this kind of thing.

I would recommend this product. It does not give me any headaches. That is the best thing. There are lots of products, but when you use this, it does not give you any headaches.

It is good because when we went to purchase this, we did not have all the information and knowing that there are a lot of options with all those differences, we had some issues, but it is obvious that this solution is going to do everything that we need. That is fine.

Our primary use case is for our core network.

The most valuable features are the great performance, high availability and easy administration.

The price is a con.

Our network is stable.

It's scalable.

If you previously used a different solution, which one did you use and why did you switch?

We needed to upgrade our network and we needed to decide to change our core network.

The initial setup was straightforward, it was simple.

We used our reseller for the implementation. We liked them.

ROI comes after three years.

We used Cisco before. When we made the decision to choose a new solution, we evaluated other vendors and chose Nexus.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten because it's the best.

This solution is used in our data center. It is our layer-two switches that connect all of our servers to the data center firewall. Our data center is a little bit different than most in that we're only layer-two in the data center.

We have increased the throughput of our datacenter. Where before we had switches that were two, one-gig LAG uplinks, we now have eighty-gig. This means that the underlying, layer-two network is not going to be the bottleneck of our data center anymore. It's going to be the other peripherals like our F5 and our Palo Alto that need to be upgraded to provide more throughput.

We leverage Cisco DCNM a lot, which allows us to automate. We're working toward allowing the server administrators to configure their own ports for their new servers that they're spinning up in the data center.

Our only complaint is about the licensing because it can always be a little more cost-effective.

The scalability of this solution is great. We couldn't afford to buy the ASIC solution, so we bought the Nexus 9Ks and put them in a Spine-and-Leaf topology. We then made each of the leaves their own vPC peers as well, so it allows us to have redundancy between servers.

Our local Cisco engineer was amazing during the whole process. He assisted us many times when installing and configuring the system. He also gave us advice on DCNM and how to set it up.

We've opened one tech case where we had to replace a switch because we believed there was a port that was bad. We had the new switch within one business day, so technical support has been awesome. 

We had Cisco switches in our data center that were reaching their end-of-life in a few years. We also had other vendor switches that were coming up on end-of-life, and we as a team, with our manager, decided that we wanted a one-vendor solution. It would make troubleshooting a lot easier because we wouldn't be opening up multiple tech cases to solve problems. Cisco provided the best solution for us.

The initial setup of this solution was only complex because we didn't have Nexus switches in our data center. We had a multi-vendor data center and the Cisco switches that we did have in there were the Catalyst series. So, it was only complex for us because we were learning a new platform. After we got through the learning phase, it was very simple and easy to set up.

We handled the implementation in-house and asked our local Cisco engineer for help when needed.

We have a three-year subscription for our licensing fees. For us, this product is perfect for what we need and it came at the perfect price point.

Arista and Juniper were both on the shortlist. We bought a few Juniper QFX series switches, and we did not like the product at all. We were investigating Arista, but Cisco came in with an awesome pricing plan for us, and a data center solution that met our needs. It was a lot cheaper than Arista, which is why our manager went with that selection.

This product has absolutely surpassed our expectation of throughput. The network team used to be blamed for slowness in the data center, but now we can confidently say that it has nothing to do with us. We're providing the organization with eighty-gigs of throughput in all directions to the firewalls. Troubleshooting poorly-performing applications is easier now because we can say that the bottleneck is not in the data center. 

We could be doing much more with our Nexus 9K switches, but they are not doing as much as they are capable of because we only have layer-two in our data center. This is the way our data center was set up and how the executive team wants it to be run. In larger data centers and larger companies, they're using the full capabilities.

My recommendation for anybody who is researching this solution is to ask for a demonstration from your local Cisco support. We had an awesome support engineer who did a demo with us. He brought in four switches and set up DCNM. We got to see the benefits of how DCNM would help us. We're transitioning to more automation because we have fewer people than we did, so the DCNM product is awesome. It used to be a twenty or thirty-minute process to add a VLAN in our data center, and now it takes approximately three minutes. The Cisco DCNM and the 9K switches were the beginning, to show what we can start doing as a network team to leverage the technology that we have.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We really lag on the AC infrastructure where the configuration and the changes make a difference in terms of troubleshooting.

The product improves us when we see an expert and L1/L2 engineers for support. We have a dependency there. A simple configuration makes a big difference. It can create more chaos inside the network. We need to make sure when we make changes in one platform and it impacts other platforms, that the technical problems don't reach the end users.

There should be better certifications. More training should be provided before we get into this product.

We are just migrating to Cisco Nexus as a newer product. We are looking for similar features in Arista. We are closing the gap from Cisco ASA to an Arista ASA environment. This gives us a very stable network when compared to Cisco.

I get very good support from Cisco. The response was very fast when compared to other vendors. 

I advise anyone to invest in a new solution because we do a periodic refresh every three years. For any product we buy, we ensure it is in the warranty and it is the leader in the market. 

We go through the Gartner studies to understand the leaders in the market. Then, we get the solutions from the partners and go over them. We do a case study with the other competitive companies on the product they use and their experience with it.

The setup was very easy, but managing it in operations was very complex. The VLANs are different. We have a network outside and inside of the ASA infrastructure.

It is not possible to provide privileged access to L1 or L2 engineers. If you provide L3 access, there is a chance that they mess up the network by making smaller changes that you don't want. 

We implemented Cisco Nexus through a consultant.

Another option was Aruba Networks.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this product a 6 or 5. The reason is that we are into Cisco for a long time. They have been very good supporters since we began the network environment.

For any technology on the education part, for the training and decisions, there are more resources available than when compared to other partner products. Planning technology through Cisco for our training sessions and getting it implemented with other products is what we do now.

Currently, we are assessing the leaders in the market for the data-container environment and SD-WAN solutions. VeloCloud was suggested by colleagues of neighbor companies.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus is for a VXLAN environment with some video multicast.

I don't think we've been using Cisco Nexus long enough to know accurately how it is improving our organization. Our first deployment was about a month ago.

The most valuable features of Cisco Nexus are the performance, flexibility, configuration, and cost. It's not a traditional pricing model from Cisco. They've offered our company a considerable reduction in price. That makes Cisco Nexus now very competitive with other vendors.

One improvement needed is support for Multi-CAD scale that we were concerned about. We're not hitting any limits at this point. There were concerns about the amount of server capacity that was going to be available. We like to see things that are already there as opposed to being told where they will be. 

The stability of Cisco Nexus thus far has been excellent. We had some initial issues with some non-Cisco optics, third parties claiming compatibility when they weren't compatible.

We've not had a scale-out yet. Cisco Nexus looks very valuable. We're starting to deploy them in other environments as well.

Cisco technical support for the 9000 is good. During our issues, we had excellent technical support. The support issues required around 40 hours. We had Cisco engineers available for the entire time. It was impressive.

In the production of our network, we've grown in scale, and that's really what it came down to. Previously we wouldn't have thought that a Nexus product was comparable to some of the other vendors, like Arista and Juniper. But the features of the 9000 brought it into line with the capabilities of other vendors that we used.

The setup is straightforward. Nexus uses options that our engineers are familiar with. The advantages were that we could leverage the knowledge that we already had.

On a scale of 1-10, I would rate it a 9. Cisco is very competitive with the other companies that are out there. I would recommend them. We've had very good luck.

Cisco is a leader. They help us with the deployment at a lower cost.

We use Cisco Nexus primarily to check the health of our links. We use it to make sure if our links are good or not. It really helps with troubleshooting.

Cisco Nexus has improved the way our organization functions through the troubleshooting. We had issues where we've seen our links saturated. We were able to determine what was being processed on the link. 

It has reduced the complexity of our network monitoring because I'm able to drill down quickly and figure out what's going on. 

It has helped us make sure that we have the best uptime that we can have. 

Although it could be better, you can get the granularity depending on the amount of time that you drill into it.

I would like to see more granularity. 

The stability of the solution is very good.

It scales very well.

We did not have a previous solution.

Cisco Nexus is straightforward to set up. We just pointed our logs to it. It's pretty easy. 

We used a consultant. I didn't install it, I don't know exactly how it was done.

We have seen ROI based on the fact that we have more uptime.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this product a seven because it's helped out a lot in terms of troubleshooting.

Our primary use case of this solution is for our data center environment.

The flexibility, how accurately the VPCs operate as well as the redundancy built into it with the VPCs are the most valuable features. 

I would like to see improved ISSU.

It's a stable solution, but there are a few bugs here and there in it and it would be nice if they weren't there. The Mac looping is an issue as well. 

The ISSUs sometimes go down.

It's very scalable. You can go up or down in size as much as you want. 

Their technical support is outstanding. We had some issues at the core layer in our Nexus data center, and the 7Ks were hitting a bug, and we couldn't figure that out until we got really deep into debugs. Their tech support was able to resolve that. 

We had our Cisco account rep and they helped us figure out what the right solution was for us.

The initial setup was rather complex because it was my first time deploying Nexus, and you have to turn on all the features to make them all work and that's something that you don't have in any other Cisco switch. It threw me for a loop. But once you figure out the resources and setting up the VDCs and everything, you're good.

I deployed this solution myself. 

We definitely got ROI from Nexus and a pretty short term because the pure redundancy and the uptime, is a real value add for us.

We were using another solution and we went with Cisco because it has more features. Also because Cisco is reliably good; nobody ever got fired for choosing Cisco.

We were looking at Arista and Juniper, but we ended up going with Cisco, mainly because of the features.

I would rate this product a pretty solid eight out of ten because it's been pretty reliable and good and it's done what it's supposed to do. There's been a little bit of bugginess in the code, but that happens.

I would consider the cost and functionality that you need and consider this in between ACI and a Nexus deployment. Right now, ACI isn't super mature, and if you don't have people that are able to actually dig in and really learn ACI, Nexus still might be the best solution.

We use it for data center connectivity and we integrate it with ACI. 

We are a Cisco shop. This solution is better compared to other options. 

It's easy to use. 

I would like to see more automation and for it to be easier to use. 

Stability is much better than it was. 

Scalability is good. 

Their technical support is better than other companies. 

The setup can be easy and complex depending on the product and features we're using. 

We used in-house resources for the deployment. 

Our licensing costs are yearly. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. Nexus is better than other switches so I would advise going with this solution. 

We got it for its port density. Our primary use case of this solution is so we can connect all of our other departments and agencies. It'll be the main connection to our core routers. I don't work directly on it, I work with the router that connects to it. 

It has improved our organization because we have aggregated ports and we're able to put multiple agencies on the multiple different interfaces that we have going there. We're able to separate them out with the use of VLANs and whatnot.

The VLAN is a little more hand driven now. I don't know exactly why the split screen does that.

If we could get some more automation integrated into it, it would make it easier.

As far as I know, it's been stable the entire time we've had it. 

We haven't surpassed the scalability at this point. 

I haven't had to use their technical support for this solution but I have used Cisco support in general. They're outstanding. 

We knew we needed to switch solutions because when we migrated to Cisco as a network, we needed a good way to could control a lot of our outside agencies.

We did the deployment ourselves and we have a reseller that sells us the equipment. 

We do yearly licensing. 

I would rate this solution an eight or nine out of ten. 

I would advise someone considering this solution to research what your actual needs are so that you size it correctly. You can always upgrade size. It's harder to downgrade.

The pros of the Cisco Nexus are the simplified integration with the data center and the end platform before building a data center.

Our primary use case of this solution is for the data centers. 

This product has improved the way our organization functions in the way that the rack-based design allowed us to eliminate chassis-based designs. The chassis design is more complicated to manage and maintain in field operations.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ease of management.

I would like to see network function virtualization with no hardware.

I would like to see the integration of the products into something where it's seamless where an engineer never touches the switch again, never does CLI and you move to an application based network organization.

The stability of the solution needs to get a better handle on the vulnerability in recent code releases that aligns better with the DCN product. We'd like to avoid the need for continual upgrades and potential outages in our data centers and having to reboot the switches for each OS upgrade.

Cisco Nexus is stable, but then, in February of 2017, a cyberwar started. Cisco is getting hammered and we're seeing that evidence in very frequent updates to the OS system. If you have six data centers or you've got multiple locations around the world, these efforts take many months to update successfully to every device. 

When it takes us multiple months and two or three releases in the middle, we invest a lot of money in maintaining the device. The hacker community is the issue. 

The scalability is fine. 

The solution's technical support is used by my architects. I don't use it personally. 

The way that our airline works, because we've recently been in a merger, is that we're putting two big airlines together. Our primary driver has been the end-of-service lifecycle and the ability to remain PCI compliant. We must also remain compliant with cybersecurity.

We typically wait until the end of service life. As we practice this, we end up doing these refreshes and adding new architecture. We're making decisions now based on features, functionalities, and outcomes for passengers getting on planes to improve their experience.

We initially started a couple of years ago with Cisco Nexus. We started the design with 9Ks and 5Ks, we ended up reevaluating the situation features and going with more 2Ks to lower the costs for what we need. 

For the deployment, we used our staff engineers and Cisco people. We worked together with Cisco on finding the right solutions for implementing the product.

I am intimately aware of what the licensing costs are with Cisco Nexus. It depends on what we decide, how much margin, and what our strategy is when we have an intersection point to where we think won't be spending money on equipment we aren't going to use. 

I have already had conversations, here and at the five portals required to manage the licensing, with the new OS releases and the requirement to use the smart license portal. There are too many portals. We need a manager. 

Cisco Nexus is similar to other licensing costs but it's painful right now. I've sent everything to our account executive to work with for our systems integration and logistical partners. They need to solve this and help train the team. There's a big gap in there.

Cisco Nexus is very costly for the service. It's insurance in case something happens. We have a very good strategy that we're happy with, it's just the renewal process that is problematic on the license. 

When I walked through the customer experience center and explained the situation, they got a good feel for how much pain and suffering it's been. Cisco needs to understand how hard the renewals are each year for us. 

Even having the SmartNet Total Care portal, having a person dedicated to the distributors, etc. it's still a mess. If the incentives get better, which I know Cisco is working on, it would be great, right now, we're buying the license year-to-year.

We have three hundred to four hundred data centers of Nexus. So the coverage associated with Smart Net, 27 by 4, is basically what we spend each year. 

We did look at another vendor. Cisco is found around the world with good support and credibility in the industry. It was an easy choice even though the functionality from the competitor was more.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product an eight for the way I work with my team. They select the product, I serve them. I rate it from a perspective of what the quality of life my team has from using this product. How simple, risk-free, and smooth can we do this without putting the data centers in jeopardy.

Make sure you do your comparisons and make the right decision with the right product before you decide. I would recommend taking a good hard look at Cisco and the Nexus product line and what it could do for you.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is to provide data center access for our customers. This includes providing servers, storage, and interconnecting those to the rest of the network.

This product has improved the way our organization functions by providing fast access to storage and data center resources. We are getting better performance out of our network by using this platform.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the capacity of the switches. One of the main advantages of going with the Nexus 9000 is that it can do advanced routing and segmentation with VLANs. 

In the next release of the solution, I would like to see varying integration between VRF (Virtual Routing and Forwarding) instances so we can integrate BGB into different VRFs in a more organized way. We have some issues with tunnels and VRFs. 

The stability of this solution is pretty cool. NX-OS is a solid match. It does run the features and all the protocols very well for us.

The scalability of this solution is very good. We had different options for physical form factors. It does work for what we need on our enterprise network.

We have a 1GB connection to a data center. Then we upgraded a server. We can quickly get more scalability from the switch by migrating to 10GB or even 25GB connections.

Cisco technical support is a good backup team when you have issues with anything. If you open a case they are very good at following up and making sure that the issue's resolved according to the needs of our network.

We knew we needed to invest in a new solution because upgrading the network is a must for every company. We had to just take into consideration the legacy switches that we were using were not giving the performance needed for the network. The old hardware did not support the demands of our clients connecting to the network.

The initial setup, if you know what you are doing, is very straightforward. You have to know what a switch is and what routing protocols are, like any other device.

If you are familiar with the IOS it is a little bit easier to translate to NX-OS and use the switch.

We're the reseller for Cisco Nexus.

We have seen new ROI from the previous platform to the new one. We're starting to see that.

Our licensing costs for this solution are approximately $100K a year for the switching part.

The products on our shortlist were mostly Cisco Nexus and Meraki.

On a scale from 1 - 10, I would give Cisco Nexus a 9. It's a solid platform. We've been having very good stability from the use of that network device.

Take into consideration the features and the protocols that are in use. Make sure that whatever is being used as a current platform can be migrated to the Nexus and that the features are available before you purchase the hardware. Understand exactly how the infrastructure will work from the operating system of the switch in case you're using any advanced features from another platform. Make sure that the transition is as expected and don't go down a bad path.

Our primary use case is for multitenant switching in our data centers for our edge equipment to go in between our firewalls and out to the internet.

It's performing well. 

The most valuable feature is the capacity for the number of customers that we can get onto it.

I get more of the frustration out of Juniper equipment than I do from Cisco products. Cisco Nexus is more versatile for us in comparison to Juniper. The routing is easier with Cisco.

The stability is good. We've never had any of them die. They've been very consistent.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is good. We've had them for the entire lifetime. We've never had to upgrade them yet.

Their technical support is good and very helpful. They knew exactly what we needed. If I call during a high volume, I might get someone that just doesn't know as much or it takes a little bit of time and they put us on hold more. Otherwise, it's good. 

We used a consultant for the deployment. 

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus a ten. I like it. I would advise anyone to go through a professional consultant with Cisco training.

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.

Our primary use case for Cisco Nexus is for our data center and for collaboration with other switches.

This product has improved the way our organization functions in the way we communicate with data from devices out there. Everything is on the radar if you deploy it on Nexus.

The most valuable feature of the solution is network visibility. It touches all of the switches. It becomes the core switch. All of the devices connected to it route towards it and so we're able to see all of the devices. 

Cisco Nexus is very stable. It's getting better now. The technology is moving to a fast and very innovative switch. It picks up all these new options and integrates them into the device. It's good for our infrastructure.

The solution's technical support is very robust. They're able to resolve any issues very quickly. There were not any issues that Cisco could not resolve for us so far.

We were using Nexus 6000 and now we're moving towards 9000. We switched because we are doing a cleanup. We are building up our infrastructure from the ground up, adding more new devices, revamping our infrastructure, and revamping our data center. It's just a need because we got too comfortable using our old devices, which are not supportive so we lost our patching. We ourselves were creating security holes. We have a need now for this solution.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus platform takes a long time. It's a complex system because we have a lot of security layers. 

We used a reseller for the deployment. 

We also looked at PCM. 

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus a good nine. Cisco is moving to new technology. It's more advanced. Anyone should invest in it. It's good.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is as a core fiber switch.

We upgraded from a 6509 unit to a 9504. We got increased bandwidth, faster performance, and newer software which has improved our organization. 

We use Cisco Nexus as a switch that houses all of our fiber connections.

They should make it easier to update the code on it. Upgrading should also be easier. 

The stability of the solution is very strong. No downtime with it. No problems. No issues.

It scales to just about any use that we needed to throw at it. It's very accommodating.

The solution's technical support is perfect. We have had no problems with it.

We switched because our current product was end-of-life and falling out of support.

The initial setup was straightforward. It has a simple routing protocol, not very many static routes.

We used a certified reseller for deployment. Our experience with them was excellent.

We have seen ROI. 

We didn't have any other vendors in mind. Cisco is the product that we've used quite heavily, so it made sense to stay with them.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product a ten. Cisco Nexus is very solid and easy to use. 

Go with Nexus, you won't regret it.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is for our core. We have Nexus 9000 and also Catalyst 9000 floor switches.

This product has improved the way our organization functions through automation. Before 9000, we were just using the 7000 and the Nexus OS. With 9000 now, we have much more automation. Everything was more manual before. 

The most valuable feature is the automation that we can do with it. 

Cisco Nexus is very new. We're still on the learning curve for the 9000.

It is very stable. We have not had any issues so far.

The Cisco Nexus platform is very scalable with the modular design.

The solution's technical support is very good. It's Cisco. For 9000 they're very responsive. We haven't had any 911 issues so far because it's new to our organization.

Whenever we have a problem or question they're very good and pretty responsive. Any ticket receives almost immediate help. We haven't had anything negative so far.

We switched because we needed automation and because the 7000s were reaching end-of-life.

The initial setup of Cisco Nexus was straightforward. It was good. It wasn't that complex because we already had the 7000. 

We used a reseller for the implementation. 

I don't really deal with the pricing but I know that it's not cheap. 

On a scale from one to ten, I rate this product a solid nine. They've been very good to us.

I would advise reading information online to learn more about Cisco Nexus. See how powerful it is.

Our primary use case of this solution is to provide Nexus 9000 in different models for the user on top of our switches or as core switches. It depends on the design and the customer's needs.

The product has improved the way our organization functions in the way that we have been able to implement this product in many customer's sites and it has been running for one of our main customer's enterprise sine 2014.

The most valuable features are that it is easy to use, provides stability, easy to configure, low latency, and it provides communication to the data center. 

In terms of improvement, the stacking between the two switches in the higher availability model should be similar to Catalyst. It's better to have one interface for configuration.

I hope to see more features for high-availability configuration such as a VSS configuration on the Catalyst series. To have one management console for both chassis. I also hope to see the dependency on the management interface for high-availability lowered.

What needs improvement is the price on the DNA subscription. It's obligatory for all the switches and you should have the option to remove it or keep it as optional. Cisco has the option to remove it now. We have agreed that in the future, they will offer a permanent license for it.

It's stable. 

Nexus has good scalability features. It provides the customer's needs.

The solution's technical support is good. We had to deal with some cases and the response times were very good. It met expectations. Response time was amazing. The customer was satisfied. 

We used to have another solution and used other products. This product provides us with better high-performance support at a good price.

The initial set up was very straightforward. It is easy to follow and we didn't have any obstacles during the implementation.

We used both a reseller and a product consultant.

Cisco Nexus has provided a good initial cost for our customers with minimum renewal fees over the next few years.

Customers do not understand the new licenses or subscription very well. Cisco should work on this. 

The subscription for licensing is expensive while other vendors provide a switch with everything at a lower price.

We previously used Catalyst 6500. 

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus a nine because it has helped us a lot with our customers. There's always room for improvement.

I would advise someone considering this solution to go for it. It's a stable product. 

We use this solution in our data center core. 

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ability to grow into ACI.

I would like to see some development into the SAE world where you can virtualize. That would be the only thing I would like to see because I need to start virtualizing my infrastructure gear at some of the other data centers that I have.

Cisco Nexus has been very stable. No issues. It's been rock solid. We haven't had any issues with it in the last twelve months. It's been good.

The scalability of this solution meets the needs that we have. The density of it is a lot higher than the 7Ks. It's good for us from that perspective. 

I could take two 7Ks that are 16-chassis, get it down into eight and have twice as much throughput. 

The solution's technical support has been fine. We haven't had to use it much.

At this point, the newest solution was purchased out of necessity for end-of-life gear. It was a refresh. Our previous solution was 7K, 5K, 2K. 

The 2Ks and 5Ks were going end-of-life. We're starting to prepare for the 7Ks going end-of-life. We went with the Cisco Nexus 9K solutions because of this.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus series is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues. 

We already had a 5K, 7K, and 2K environment. Going to the 9Ks was straightforward. We were experienced in the Nexus area. It wasn't anything new.

Deployment was done by a supplier partner of ours, British Telecom. Our experience with them was good.

It's around $160K a year for our license.

We have a management contract with Cisco. They are our managed service provider. We didn't have much of a choice.

On a scale of one to ten, I rate this product a ten because of the stability. Stability is my biggest key right now. Cisco Nexus has been stable since it was implemented last year.

It's a good product. I haven't had any issues whatsoever. 

We use Nexus primarily for our data centers.

It's pretty easy to use and operates at high speed.

The most valuable feature for us is its speed capacity.

Upgrade and promote catalyst switches to the Nexus, it's a lot faster.

As far as we can tell, it's stable.

They're pretty scalable.

All of our old stuff was end of life. We used Catalyst 4948 before.

The initial setup was somewhat complex. There were a lot of moving parts and we needed to get everybody going in the right direction. It didn't take very long though.

We used a reseller called Sirius for the deployment. They were pretty good.

We didn't look at any other vendors.

I would rate this product as an eight out of ten, because it's a pretty good product. It's stable and reliable.

It's definitely worth it.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is for our data center switches. It's our core switch that we use everywhere.

This product has improved the way our organization functions through the ability to do tasks in a maintenance window while allowing other teams to continue to work.

There have been a couple of cases where we needed to do emergency support outside of a maintenance window. We were able to make the case that there should be no impact. Luckily, there was no impact. 

The most valuable feature of the Cisco Nexus solution is the default vPC functionality. We can do maintenance with it. We can do core channeling up to the switches and we can manage them as opposed to working on a stack. We don't have to bring the whole thing down and back up. We can reduce downtime.

Cisco Nexus still needs more stability. Not that they're unstable. FlexPod in particular. My team doesn't work with that but it's owned by the server infrastructure team. It's in the UTS. They're pretty stable but every once in a while, it's not.

It is mostly stable. There have been some times where wacky things will happen, like buggy code. There's a bug in the code where you can't save the configuration. We've had to reboot both devices, and then it fixes itself. There's no known fix. Cisco says that it has been fixed years ago, but it's still not working. There have been weird things like that.

Cisco Nexus is very scalable.

Tech support is very good with Cisco. Support for this unit is no better or worse than anything else with Cisco, but still good.

The initial setup of the Cisco Nexus platform is straightforward. It's complex, but it's not more complex than anything else.

From an engineering perspective, the pros outweigh the cons in terms of price.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight. They're not perfect, but they mostly do what they need to do. I don't feel negative about them at all.

Our primary use case for Cisco Nexus is for MACsec encryption.

Nexus has improved my organization in the way that it provided enhanced security in a point in the network that was critical. 

The most valuable feature is the ease of management for network administration.

The additional features I would like to see included in the next release is the ability to integrate routing and switching features. 

It is relatively stable. 

Cisco Nexus is very scalable.

The Cisco technical support is good as of now.

When I was the systems analyst, we discovered a need for Cisco Nexus. We had limited encryption support. We didn't have any similar solutions before.

The initial setup was relatively simple.

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the product at an eight. Cisco Nexus is excellent. I wouldn't rate it a ten because it could use an enhanced feature set.

I would advise someone considering this solution to consider all of the vendors. 

We use this solution in our data center.

This solution provides our organization with high capacity.

This is a powerful device and I can get good bandwidth.

Nothing is perfect.

I have found that all Cisco products are stable, and I am happy with this one.

I have not dealt with technical support for this solution.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We deployed this solution in-house.

I like Cisco products, so we did not evaluate other options.

This is a product that I recommend for people looking to try new devices or a new solution. Overall, this is a good product, but nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution is the backbone of our data center. It is the fabric to our UCS blade servers.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see a focus on backplane deployment, so you can stack more.

In terms of stability, this solution is rock solid. We've had no issues with it.

I would say that to make this solution more scalable, they need to provide a backplane as they do on a lot of their other network infrastructure equipment.

Technical support for this solution is excellent.

We have been using the Nexus line for more than ten years. I don't remember what the previous model was, but it had good reliability and everybody knew how to use it, so we just upgraded.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

We used InterVision to assist us with the implementation, and they did an outstanding job.

This solution should be made more affordable.

This is a product that I recommend people look at, but it would be nice if it were more affordable.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

This solution is the backbone of our data center.

We have multiple tenants built on it, in a network-centric design. We have our Dev QA tenant, user acceptance tenant, production tenant, our DMZ, and then our user edge where everything comes in and goes out. We have firewalls in between all of the tenants, and we use ACI to microsegment between the networks, within the tenants. All of the intra-tenant traffic goes through the firewalls.

Prior to our deployment of ACI, everything was, essentially, flat open access. By using ACI we were able to segment out everything and get more visibility into our virtual environment. At our data center, we are 99.99% virtual.

The most valuable feature is the integration with the virtual switches of our UCS platform. It provides a lot of visibility from the ACI console. The ability to tenant-out the traffic and segment it, without having to get into separate physical hardware or trying to figure out VDCs manually, has been really powerful and extremely useful for us.

I would like to see the usability improved by simplifying the user interface. For example, it would be nice to have a simple way to find endpoints and get information about them. It would be great if they could make the interface a little more user-friendly, but not trade power off for simplicity.

This solution has been very stable and functioning properly, and we've barely touched it since it went in. We've got a big project to start doing upgrades on it, but so far so good. We haven't had any issues with it as long as I've been at the company.

In terms of scalability, we haven't grown the deployment, yet, because we're nowhere near capacity. There is a lot of scalability in terms of what we could use, although it's a matter of what we actually need. It seems very scalable, but we just haven't had the need to scale up yet.

I have not had to speak with technical support yet, which speaks to the stability of the product.

The initial setup of this solution is fairly complex. That's one thing about ACI; it takes a bit to wrap your mind around how it works. It's not overly complicated once you understand the concepts, but coming from somewhere that had never worked with anything like ACI, it was difficult for me, initially, to grasp the complexity of it. Once I did, I realized that it's not actually as complicated as it looks when you first log in.

We have used a couple of consultants over the years. I believe it was BT that assisted with the original deployment, and it is Presidio that is working on our upgrade project.

My understanding is that the people from BT were great. With respect to Presidio, they know their stuff, and they seem to be putting together good, concrete plans for our system.

I believe that we have seen ROI. We have been able to streamline our processes dramatically because of the way that the new architecture works. While it was a large investment, I believe that it has had a big impact on the productivity of our systems, in general.

There are still a lot of things that we have yet to do with this system, in particular with the APIs and scripting. Also, there are a lot of additional features that we haven't had a chance to look at yet because we haven't upgraded.

Not a lot of people in my area are familiar with this solution. It is kind of new and scary, so a lot of people are a little wary of it. However, now that I've had some time with it, I find it very powerful. Having direct access to virtual switches is a huge advantage. 

My advice to anybody researching this solution is to take a good look at it because it is great for segmenting your network. Make sure that you get a lot of training as part of your deployment, including education on how it works and why the design is the way it is, or what the best practice design is if you're looking at creating your own.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for our new data center.

This solution has improved our redundancy.

The most valuable feature is the HSRP (Hot Standby Router Protocol).

I would like to see better collaboration with other, low-end devices.

This is a stable solution.

I think that it scales well. For what we use it for, it has been great. Right now, we have a ten-gig network, but it can scale up to forty-gig, which is really good.

Technical support for this solution is great.

Prior to this solution, we used ePlus. We switched in the move to newer technology. 

We have a vendor for products, but we do not just go with what they suggest. We do our homework, in-house, as well.

There are many good things about this product including the reliability, scalability, and of course, security. This is a product that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution as an aggregate router in our data center environment so that we can have an extended VLAN port between different data centers, regional and local.

The company has multiple data centers and most of the connections between them are through the 9K switches. We also have a couple of them in our lab for testing. These are used to test throughput, the system reliability, accuracy, and scalability for how many VLAN extenders we can have in our infrastructure.

We are using Spine-and-Leaf architecture for our data centers.

The most valuable features of this solution are scalability and throughput. We are extending the VLAN to multiple data centers.

We would like to see this solution support routing.

One of the problems we have is that there is no confirmation for when you try to test a system command. It just accepts it and does not give you a response.

Stability is very good. We have been using it a lot and for a long time. It is being upgraded all the time.

Our environment is very large. We have multiple regional and national data centers, where data is sent between them.

Technical support for this solution is very good. I have been working with them for a while. We have dedicated line support for HTTP.

The initial setup of this solution is not very complex. The problem is reliability. We get help from Cisco technical support and Cisco sales, and the deployment has to be coordinated with the Cisco architectural team to get it working on our network. There are a lot of people involved in the deployment, and before anything, it has to be tested.

We have advanced engineering, where they do the testing to make sure that the problems are being captured. If there are any issues then they are sent back to operations before they can deploy.

We use a Cisco consultant for deployment. They are a reseller for the whole region. Everything is taken from the warehouse, prepped, and tested to make sure that everything is working. Their response is very good, and we have been working with them for a long time.

Our licensing fees are paid annually.

The company is currently investing heavily in new technology from Cisco. This includes the SD-WAN, a network administration system, and NFV for the virtual firewall.

For this solution, we did not consider other vendors. However, we do use multiple vendors for our firewall and routing solutions.

For anybody researching this solution, I would recommend looking at the 9K, but you have to look at all of the metrics and compare them between vendors. This is the way to come up with the best solution. Everything, including technical support, has to be considered because, for example, you can have the product but if you don't have support then you are going to have to deal with issues by yourself.

Overall, this product is good, but nothing is perfect. It is important to have competition.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is as headend switches at remote sites.

These are the same as the old headend switches, but newer and nicer.

The most valuable feature is the Bluetooth console.

They need to offer fibre switches in the 9K series.

I would like to have the ability to identify ports by flashing port lights, so I can tell the user "We need to look at port four", and then I can flash the light remotely using the command line.

The stability of this solution is good.

Scalability with this solution is easy.

Technical support for this solution is good.

We moved to this solution because it is an ever-growing field. You need to stay ahead, and uptime is crucial.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward.

We used AT&T to assist us with the implementation.

AT&T is our primary vendor. Verizon was on the short list, and Cisco themselves was on the list as well.

This is a good switch, overall, and there are only a few other features that we'd like to see.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is for the core network infrastructure of our data centers. We use Nexus and the FEX line of products to interconnect all of the server infrastructure, as well as external connections that come in from our outside vendors. 

This solution streamlines how we have to configure things because we can do everything from one device, whereas if we had individual devices we would have to go to each one and configure them manually.

The most valuable features are the flexibility of the blade infrastructure, as well as the FEX integration.

I would love to see Active/Active FEX connectivity, which is enhanced vPC, where we could also do a vPC from a server in that type of configuration. It's still a limitation that's been carried over from the 7K that I'm surprised is still absent from the 9K. Including this would give us the highest level of redundancy without risking having orphaned ports, which we do have at times.

At this point, I am happy with the stability of this solution. It has been better than the 7K line.

The scalability seems pretty solid. We're not a very large company, so we don't max out any of the limitations of the solution.

I have not dealt directly with technical support, although I have received feedback from my engineers. What little support we've needed has worked out very well.

I have nearly ten years of experience with the Nexus 7K line. Our change was primarily driven by the company's requirement to maintain our equipment. With the 7K line going out of support shortly, we had to move to a supported platform to meet regulatory requirements.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. The similarities between the 9K and the older 7K helped with the transition. It didn't complicate things because the functionalities are so similar that it was easy enough to transfer our current configuration over. We were even able to make slight adjustments for improvement.

We used CompuNet to assist us with the implementation.

The engineer was great, but the project manager wasn't so great. He didn't really manage the project. I came in late, in the middle of the project, and ended up putting it on hold because there was no plan. They were trying to implement within a couple of weeks. So, I had to put it on hold for about three months before we actually were able to move our core over to the new 9K infrastructure.

With the implementation of the FEX infrastructure, it is going to save us a lot of time. We are incapable of implementing new connectivity for new hardware devices without having the ability to manage multiple devices.

Besides, the ROI for this solution is that it gets me off of the audit list.

We only have a yearly support contract, as we do not use any of the subscription-based functions at this time.

We only evaluated solutions by Cisco.

With the feature set we are using now, I cannot think of any major changes that we would require. In the future, as we move into a hybrid cloud strategy, I may see opportunities for improvement.

There are still limitations within the product.

My advice for anybody researching this solution is to make sure that it meets your requirements. From a stability standpoint, it works, but not every feature set that you may need or require is there, so you have to look at it closely.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for the access layer of our network.

This solution is helping us in terms of providing SDN, software-defined networking.

The most valuable features are the access layer security, OpenConfig, and OpenFlow.

We would like to see OpenConfig covering most of the industry standards. The YANG models, for example, and also support for OpenFlow.

The areas that need improvement are MACsec, OpenConfig, and OpenFlow.

Stability is not really up to the mark. There are a lot of bugs in MACsec and OpenFlow.

Scalability is good enough for now, and not really an issue for us.

I have not spoken with technical support.

We did use another solution prior to this one. We have had a lot of different switches.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. For the configuration, we used zero-touch provisioning, so it was straightforward.

We had assistance with the deployment of the solution.

We are multi-vendor, so whoever gives us the best product is the one we purchase from.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to start their testing early, as the features need time to run.

This solution needs a lot more improvement, such as the bugs that need to be fixed.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

My primary use for this solution is bridging servers and storage arrays and networks across multiple domains.

We move massive amounts of data across the network at a time, so the fact that we can do it over a ten-gigabit pipeline is incredible. It speeds up the network data transfer time.

The most valuable feature is the high performance.

I really wish that Nexus and iOS commands were more similar than they are different. Standardization across iOS and Nexus operating systems would be an improvement.

The stability of this solution is great.

This solution has great scalability.

We are a partner, and most of our programs are air-gapped, which means that we don't get to have real-time customer support. Somebody who is cleared has to come on-site to look at what our problems are.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. There is a pre-configuration wizard that will prompt you whenever you connect any device for the first time. It is pretty simple that way.

The only solutions that we considered were by Cisco. We have used other products, for example from HP, but we were not as satisfied by those as we were with Cisco.

If you want high performance and availability then Nexus is the way to go.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution in our data centers.

This solution has given us the ability to use Cisco ISE for security.

The most valuable feature is the ability to integrate with other Cisco security products.

This solution costs a lot.

This solution is very stable.

This is a very scalable solution.

I haven't had to use technical support yet.

We had two Cisco switches, but they were very, very old.

Our initial setup was complex because we were installing the other data center equipment at the same time.

We used a consultant for our deployment, and our experience was not great. We have had a lot of problems with our vendors.

We haven't seen ROI yet because we're still in the middle of deploying it.

This is a product that I can recommend that people use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use this solution in our data center.

This solution has allowed us to scale bigger than ever.

The most valuable feature is that it is high-density, ten-gig.

The code quality for this solution has gotten worse and needs improvement.

The hardware is stable, but the code quality has gotten worse.

The scalability of this solution is great.

Cisco's technical support is great.

I have always used Cisco products.

The initial setup of this solution is complex, but that is expected. You have to put a lot of thought into it.

My advice to anybody implementing this solution is to plan ahead six months.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution as a core aggregated switch.

I can't say that it has improved our organization. We are moving away from this product because it is too much for what we have.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the power.

In the Nexus 3500, you can't do per-port Jumbo frames, so you have to enable it as a global configuration. This is a feature that should be added.

It is pretty stable, although I had the power supply go down twice in this past year. We replaced it the next day in both cases. We do have bad power where we are, so that could be a factor.

Scaling this product is on the pricey side. If you're a top-end enterprise company then you can scale it. You can stack it, or build a solution with redundancy.

I would rate their technical support a nine out of ten.

We are switching away from this solution because it is too much for what we have. We will likely be dealing with CDW because they give us the best pricing. However, we have not chosen a replacement solution yet.

I was not involved in the implementation of our current solution. However, I have set up Nexus switches before and it is is pretty straightforward.

The licensing fees for this solution are approximately $800,000 USD annually.

My advice to anybody researching this solution is to really look at what you have. See if it actually fits into your environment. In our case, a previous employee chose this solution because we had the money. It was the biggest, top-tiered product. When I came in and took over the network, we realized that it is too much for what we have. We're just wasting money.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is enterprise networking.

The ease of integration with existing systems has been helpful.

This is a very feature-rich solution, but the most valuable feature is flexibility.

The interface is as user-friendly as you can make it.

There are too many different model numbers and too much complexity. The Nexus 9K, for example, came from a family of twenty offerings.

This is a very stable solution.

The scalability of this solution is very good.

Technical support for this solution is very good.

Based on client demand, which was moving towards software-defined networking, the Nexus 9000 was the next step. We used the prior generation, Catalyst, before this.

The initial setup of this solution is fairly straightforward. It is very user-friendly.

The return on investment for this solution is very good. It is very practical and versatile.

We did not have other vendors on our shortlist.

This is a very good product, although it would be nice to restrict the number of offerings. My suggestion is to evaluate ACI, SDN, and the Nexus 9000.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The Cisco Nexus is the core of our network, and I am responsible for troubleshooting the device.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its ease of use. I do have some issues finding the correct commands, at times, but I am familiar with the command line interface.

The only issue that I have with this product is finding help on different commands when I'm trying to make a change. Or, if I'm troubleshooting an issue, finding what commands I need to do certain things. I know what I need to do, but I'm not sure of the exact command.

This is a very stable solution. Its stability means that we do not have any issues.

This solution is very scalable, and we haven't had any issues at all.

Cisco has always been very helpful. I've never had an issue with technical support, and they are always responsive when I call.

This solution was deployed before I joined the company, so I do not know.

This is a good product in my eyes. I've never really had any issues with it, and the support is good.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the 9000s in a series of different things in both the data center and even in the LAN (Local Area Network). Mainly we just use the products for the management of all the traffic — nothing really crazy. Being in the government, we can't use ACI (Application Centric Infrastructure) and certain other technologies yet. The 9000s are deployed for high-end layer two and layer three switching capabilities.

The solution has improved operations by helping us resolve bottlenecks throughout our infrastructure. A lot of it came down to the fact that these new products have a much higher throughput. So it kind of cleans traffic up and makes things a lot smoother in process.

The most valuable benefit of this solution is the ability to use all the different features like VX LAN (Virtual Extensible LAN) and PPC. We use the solutions in the data center and on the LAN side. For all intents and purposes, we were kind of hoping that the 9000s would take on the form of multiple contacts and VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) like the 7000s have, but we haven't seen that capability come out yet.

The only real feature that we are hoping would evolve at some point is multi-contexts to get into multi-tenancy type environments. We are very interested in that with the 7000s. But we didn't like all the other robustness that 7000s had that we had to pay extra for. 9000s fit our needs a little bit better, but multi-contexts would be a really good feature for organizations like us, so we can separate different tenants logically and in a more secure fashion.

So far the stability is great. We never had any kind of problems with it. I really can't even speak to any questions about the stability because of the fact that we had zero problems. We've only been using it for about a year-and-a-half though. We are hoping to keep continue on that path and that everything continues to perform at a high level.

The scalability of the product is great. We buy way above what we really need. So when it comes to density, throughput, feature sets, software, etcetera, we find out what we need and we can just upgrade it. That approach has made things really good. We look forward to tapping into the ability to start automating things through Python and Linux customizations.

We were getting bottlenecks at throughput because our equipment was just getting too old and too slow. The whole architecture was archaic. We saw our chance to make a major change and not just replace a hubcap with a hubcap. We decided to go with a much better solution.

The setup wasn't really complex beyond the fact that we switched to a different platform that has a totally different operating system. It was a bit of a learning curve for us. We weren't heavily into Nexus, so current staff didn't have skills using that iOS screen immediately. But now it's a lesson learned, always very easy to get around after a little while.

We went through a reseller for implementation. Worldwide Technologies was the one we chose for the major part of this. We've also used Force 3 for some other smaller purchases and the integration of this kind of product, too. But our biggest purchase that changed our environment was through Worldwide Technologies.

Our experience with them was outstanding. They were willing to meet with us, engage with us and discuss where we wanted to go with the capability ad nauseam with no restraints. They would come to us and have workshops and everything without any kind of problems.

We went straight to Cisco and actually did not consider other solutions. It was partly because of familiarity. All of their staff were trained in what we needed. We can change product lines within Cisco if we needed to upgrade without any pain points. We didn't bother to consider other vendors.

I would rate the Cisco solutions as a nine out of ten because nothing is a ten. Everything can improve. It's a top-notch product and it has not done anything short of everything we wanted it to do. 

As far as advice, I would definitely say to try to look five years ahead, instead of just one or two. In our case, unique things about the nine K's are that they can run in iOS or ACI mode and that works with our planning. It was very favorable that we could maintain our current style of infrastructure that is not as automated. But then, through a transition plan, we won't need to buy new hardware to switch over to a more automated approach like with ACI. For us, that was a very favorable capability of this product that conformed to our future modeling. 

We have a lot of customers that we implement Nexus platforms for.

This product is made for lossless data, so it's a very high-performance switch. If there's one place you don't want to lose data, it's in the data center. The 9Ks support speeds of 40-gigabit and 100-gigabit, today. They've got pretty good throughput in the box, they've got virtual output queues, things of that nature, which help contribute to the lossless data.

I like a lot about this solution. They are very high-performance switches and they are made for lossless data, so they're a good play in the customer environment. 

The 9K was developed to support ACI, the software-defined data center technology. For this reason, there is no feature parity between the 9K and the 5K or 7K, which means that it is harder to position the 9K to future proof them. If a customer wants to leverage their investment for ACI in the future then it is difficult. I know that Cisco has added some Fibre Channel over Ethernet capabilities to the 9K line, but there are some other features that it does not have capabilities for. For example, virtual device context is not supported. It would be really nice to see some capabilities like that added to the 9K line so that we can position them to future-proof our customers.

I understand why it is that they don't have some of the features from the older Nexus models, but we get into some scenarios where the customers need those features, and they have to go with a 7K or a 5K. Ideally, I would prefer to position a 9K if I could, to future-proof them and lead them along that path to ACI, eventually.

With respect to the stability, I can't think of any major issues I've ever come across with it.

I think that these units are made to scale, but it depends on how they're deployed. If they're deployed within an ACI environment and that's the customer's expectation, they work fine.

If they're deployed, say, a 9500 model in a non-ACI role, a traditional data center switching role, and the customer decides that they want a virtual device context then we could not support it in that scenario. In this particular case, it wouldn't really scale. That is why it's tough sometimes, in a non-ACI environment, to implement the 9K.

In general, Cisco has always got good technical support.

They're responsive, their people are always available, and they respond relatively quickly. Compared to competitors such as HP, Aruba, Dell EMC Networking, etc, the support from Cisco is always a head and shoulders above those other competitors.

There is some complexity to the initial setup of this solution.

There are a lot of facets to configure a network. It's one thing to configure VLANs and things like that, but when you're configuring quality of service, for example, on a Nexus device, it's all class maps, service policies, mapping queues, and things like that. There is no auto QOS functionality like you might have on a Catalyst switch line, so they're a little bit more complex.

It is not really a big deal because once people have worked with them a little bit, they master it and move on.

They don't see additional revenue from it, but they do see cost savings. With the 9K in NX-OS mode, there's still a lot of touch points with them, although the support for bash and pipe can really simplify that. In an ACI mode, certainly, there are savings because of the orchestration and automation that's occurring as part of the software-defined network.

Cisco's licensing structures can be complex across different technologies, for example, unified communications. The ACI licensing is not so bad.

As they are moving to the DNA Essentials, as opposed to the old Cisco One Advantage-type solution, it is adding a little more complexity to the licensing scenarios. But in general, I think that Cisco is moving toward synching everything up and trying to get everything licensed in a similar way, whether its a data center switch or a campus network switch.

I'm fine with where Cisco is moving to.

There are a lot of competitors out there. For example, the VMware NSX, which is a pure overlay, it's more network virtualization. The ACI solution is more full-featured, and you get visibility under the underlying overlay. It's very performing, and where we've deployed it for customers they are extremely happy with it. There's a learning curve in deploying it because you do things a little differently, but overall it's a solid solution.

When we lead with a software-defined data center, we lead with Cisco.

I'm a pre-sales engineer, and I help customers blueprint out and design their future data center. We really like this solution. It's a great switch. If there is a data center switch we try to lead with, it's the 9K. I like the Cisco ACI solution in general, that the Nexus 9K is a foundation of. I would certainly recommend it.

If a competitor like VM or NSX tries to position their solution and they try to say, "You don't really have to replace the network or re-design the network", that's not really true because the overlay is only going to be as performant as the underlay. If they deploy that technology on an old-age network that's not deployed in a spine and left topology, then the customer is going to have to do that anyway. The Cisco solution takes all of that into consideration as part of the deployment, so it is an optimized software-defined network when it's deployed for the customer.

Overall, they are a pretty good switch, although it doesn't have some of the features that some of the previous lines have had.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for our data center switches.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its reliability.

We have encountered some software bugs.

I have a positive impression of the stability of this solution.

I'd say that this solution is very scalable.

This solution has really good technical support. They generally respond by email, and it is really quick. They usually respond within a couple of hours.

I joined the company after this solution had been implemented.

My understanding is that the initial setup was pretty straightforward.

This is a really good product and something that I'm really familiar with. Anybody who has decided to implement this solution is making a good choice.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is network connectivity.

It's based on the Cisco line of products, so a lot of people are trained with them.

The most valuable feature of this solution is user configurability.

In the next release of this solution, Cisco should keep trending on ease-of-use, with more human or regular language and commands.

Maybe they could add some machine learning and AI integration. Ease-of-use and making things more human-readable is most important.

Cisco Nexus is very stable.

It is very scalable.

The Cisco Nexus technical support is very good.

We needed to invest in a new solution because of speed. We used older versions of Cisco Cloud. The reason why we switched was just adapting with the times.

The initial setup is straightforward with the right training. Search out there, find a lot of knowledge before you begin.

I did the setup myself.

The license on a yearly basis is $200,000.

Cisco was on the shortlist with Extreme and Juniper. We chose Cisco because there was integration with other Cisco equipment in the data center.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus an eight to nine.

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 primarily use this solution for data centers in places like high schools or businesses that support other businesses.

This solution improves network speed and provides high availability for our users.

The most valuable features are the high availability and the basic configurations that we can implement.

I would like to see a central management solution in order to have all of the equipment in one place.

Also, more documentation and more design examples would help us to reach other clients.

I have seen an improvement in the stability of our network with this solution.

This solution is very scalable.

This solution has excellent technical support.

I have experience with the A2K and the Nexus.

The initial setup is complex, but we have a lot of very good documentation.

We used an integrator and a consultant for the implementation. They were pretty good, it was easy and it was very nice for the clients.

Our licensing costs for this solution are approximately $200 USD per month.

We were already working with Cisco.

This is a good solution

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

This solution is used as a switch in our data center.

This solution has made our environment more modular.

The most valuable feature is its reliability.

The technical support for this solution needs to be improved.

This solution is pretty good with respect to stability.

Technical support is not very good.

Prior to using this solution, we used Avaya switches. We experienced some hardware failures so we wanted to get a more reliable product. This is why we changed to the Cisco Nexus line. We also wanted more modularity, because when a part failed with our previous solution, you had to replace the whole switch.

The initial setup for this solution is a bit complex. Not just anybody without the technical know-how can set it up.

We had a specialist from Cisco Professional Services assist us with the implementation. Their service was all right.

The return on investment has been pretty good.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We use the Cisco Nexus as our primary solution for the data center.

The most valuable features of the solution are capacity and scalability.

They did the upgrade recently. It's pretty steady right now.

The scalability of the solution is huge. It's a big box.

Cisco tech support is great.

We are always a Cisco shop.

The initial setup is always complex. It's a new box, so everything has to be set up because migration is a tricky part. It's not just a plug-and-play device. It's a difficult task.

We applied the installation of Cisco Nexus internally.

We have a perpetual license, which means that when we purchase a box, there's no license in the box. Those 9K's are just routers. They're like big data center switches.

In the decision-making process, we knew that we needed to invest in the solution depending on the company's growth vs. product capacity. 

We wanted to invest in a bigger and newer switch.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would rate Cisco Nexus at 8. It is going just great.

Our primary use for the Cisco Nexus is the data center, core routing, switching, etc.

Cisco Nexus has improved the way our organization functions by being able to cut the costs. We were able to collapse the core. 

We use Cisco Nexus use as our core and our distribution switch.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Nexus is modularity. It's like the Swiss Army knife of switches. It makes the switches. It can do everything if you have enough money.

If you pay for all the features, you can do almost anything you want to do with it.

The additional features I would like to see is X-LAN and ACI. More ACI or SDN features.

We haven't had any issues. Cisco Nexus is very stable.

Cisco Nexus is very scalable. If you have money to buy more cards, then you get the added features. As long as you have a lot of money.

The technical support for Cisco Nexus is excellent.

The initial shttps://www.itcentralstation.c... of the Cisco Nexus platform is straightforward. 

If you know what you're doing, there are a lot of examples for configuration. There are a lot of best practices out there.

The reseller was Logicalis and the experience has been great with them.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate this product with a seven. Cisco Nexus needs to add the SDN capability and lower the price.

Go with Cisco because of best practices and all the documentation that's out there.

Our primary use case for Cisco Nexus is for an internet data center.

Cisco Nexus can handle the traffic in our data center. This was a brand new bill for a data center that we are setting up for a gaming environment. We knew we needed heavy duty switching hardware at that location.

Cisco Nexus has good overall reliability and configuration options. It is fairly straightforward to access the switching platforms.

Cisco Nexus is a switch. It's fairly straightforward in what it does and what it can offer. Other than the differences between the command line or vs. Catalyst, it's just getting used to it.

I don't have any negative issues. Cisco Nexus is expensive.

The stability has been great. We've been using it for the last five years and haven't had any failures yet.

I don't see any issues with the scalability of Cisco Nexus.

For Cisco's overall technical support, i.e. if you have a problem, I'd probably give it eight or a nine out of ten. It's reliable. 

One of our switches died last week and we were able to RMA it. Within four hours it arrived on time and worked. We have no issues with Cisco's customer support.

We didn't have any previous solution.

The initial set was fairly straightforward. It's a basic set up that we have. It's not an overly complex network that it's being used in. It was primarily used to support channels.

Cisco was our only vendor.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd probably give Cisco Nexus an eight to nine, based on relatability and the ease of configuration.

Given the overall reliability and stability of the Cisco product, it's worth the price over any other switching platform out there.

We primarily use this product for campaign management.

The product has allowed us to create one holistic view for our entire organization.

The most valuable features for us are schedule management, analytics, and Assurance software.

Any problems we have with the product stems from the difficulty of connecting with other non-Cisco products. There are other products on the market which we would like to have integrated. That's when we have a real solution.

It's quite stable. It's not as good as it was supposed to be. 

For the products we are currently using there is still a lot more to be done to allow integration of other market products.

The customer service is pretty good.

Installation and deployment of the product are pretty straightforward.

We used Configur8 for the implementation. They are a Cisco partner. The service was very good — amazing.

We did explore other products, but Cisco is something we can use permanently. Specifically, we compared with HP/HPE.

I would rate this product a seven out of ten. It needs a lot more improvement in integration capabilities.

Mostly what we use Cisco Nexus for is in our access layer and distribution networks on our campus.

I'm the person that makes the decisions on purchasing. I have a manager above me that gives a budget, but I decide on products and spending. Some of it is previous experience with the hardware. We also trust our partners and the people that deploy it for their recommendations. We're looking across model lines. 

We're a large enterprise. We're nationwide. We tend to have limitations within a certain scope. We purchase so that we can keep our costs down and also support anything we want.

There are some limitations and we have to pick from the list of available options. 

Some of the previous Cisco equipment that we've had, i.e. the 2948's and 3560's, are similar.

The most valuable feature of this solution is stability. We have a pretty large campus. We need the redundancy options and diverse paths that are required. Also, some of the capacity that the Cisco Nexus has.

The only major improvement required would be stability. With some of the products we had before, we had a little more downtime than we would like.

We had to spend more time either dealing with parts that needed to be replaced, or issues that we had in configurations that we needed to upgrade. The Cisco Nexus is a lot more stable and doesn't have all of the bugs when it has to do with upgrades.

Some of the fiber optic capacity increases will be good because we're already looking at 40 GB and 100 GB at a reasonable price. 

Fiber capacity is going to be something we're starting to look on our roadmap, how do we increase what we have available.

We use Cisco Nexus and haven't had any problems. We've been happy with it.

Scalability for us is great. We can use Cisco Nexus for what we need it to do. In the future, I don't see any obstacles this would create. It works great.

Cisco always does a great job. Sometimes it's difficult to get to the level of engineer that you need for support. Overall, the experience that we get is fine. Eventually, we'll be able to get the support that we require to get the issue fixed if there's a problem.

Cisco Nexus is straightforward for deployment. If we had to have any kind of hands-on support, we could access them. If you want to you can always pay for someone to come for services. 

We may need to have services on site to be able to help us with deployment. We've used that in the past. For some of this equipment, we have enough experience within our team to be able to deploy it. Then if we run into problems, we can just call in for help.

We have a contractor that already has contracted out to do that work locally in our facility. They take care of all that for us. Our experience with that partner was good. We're happy with them. They did a good job.

From an improvement on an availability metric perspective, we have seen ROI.

We do yearly licensing. I don't directly pay for Cisco Nexus. Enterprise, above me, pays for all our licensing across the United States. I know we do pay a yearly fee for our portion.

In our enterprise organization, we're a little bit different than the government. We buy into the economy of scale. Since we have centers all across the United States, we try to centralize and enterprise manage our equipment. We tend to go with one vendor and that decision is above me.

I don't get to evaluate the days of local control within our infrastructure. We moved away from that about 10 years ago so that we can take advantage of economies of scale.

I would say take advantage of the resources that Cisco has in regards to some of the marketing and sales reps. They can provide you at least a guide on the options.

Sometimes you get locked in on a particular product, even though it's still biased. Within the company, opportunities exist to talk about other options. 

A lot of times Cisco will bring a technical engineer, it's not just a sales rep trying to sell something. They'll bring their technical representatives that understand the environment and consider other options within the brand.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at a nine. I'm not sure I know everything about it to give it a ten. 

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.

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.

This solution is used as the core and access switches in our largest data center. We have several of them that make up our 40-gigabit uplink.

From my perspective, this is a nice solution. These units are easy to work with and they have a lot of features that you can't get anywhere else. It gives me an unparalleled ability to build out my environment differently than I would have if I was going with another vendor. This is true even if I was going with a Catalyst model instead of a Nexus model.

The most valuable feature of this solution is its stability. We don't have any problems with them, ever. It doesn't matter how much we hammer them or load stuff up on them, they never give us any trouble. I cannot say that for many other platforms that I operate, so I am really pleased with that aspect.

The ability to troubleshoot on this model is very good, and far beyond what you get on a different model. We have had some weird issues in our data center, and this has helped us in that regard. Sometimes you need a tech to help you with it because it's a little too complex, but at least you can see the data. I wish I could say that about, pretty much, anything else I have.

I would like to see Duo directly integrated with the Nexus hardware, instead of it being through the proxies, like how Duo works today. The way it works now really irritates me.

There is a lot of depth in the Nexus class, and it would help to make this more accessible to the users. We, for instance, are using them no differently than we would a Catalyst switch with VPCs. With that in mind, some of the more in-depth features would be nice to have, so having easier access to them would be beneficial.

We have been operating for a year and a half, and we've never had one crash. I couldn't say that for most other platforms.

We have not had an opportunity to scale this solution, but it seems very scalable. The VPC, virtual port channels, and the virtual domains, together, allow you to scale endlessly. I have never seen any problems with them.

I love Cisco Smart Net. It is the best thing in the business. I've never dealt with another vendor that comes even close to Smart Net.

This solution was integrated before I started, but we used to have Cisco 7K and 5K models. When we built the new data center, which was necessary after our company split in two, the 9K made more sense. It was the right choice for us at that point.

The initial setup seemed pretty straightforward. These units were a little different, compared to the Nexus 5K that I came from. Some commands are a little different, but other than that, it was easy to do.

There are a lot of more complex features in the Nexus class that we aren't using today, so maybe it would have been harder if we were using some of those. But, for a basic setup, it was easy enough.

We used a third party, Logicalis. The sold us the product and performed the basic installation. The VPCs were built, the management and IP configuration were completed before we took it over.

I felt like we paid for more than we got, but that was ok. They got the job done and we didn't have time for it. At the end of the day, I would rate them a three out of five.

Every Cisco product is more expensive than competitors on the market, which is just a fact, but from my perspective, it is worth it.

Our company is locked into one vendor for purchasing, which is a board decision. The only time we can use another vendor is if they sell it as part of a solution. Logicalis was the only vendor that had the solution we wanted, so that's who we went with.

This solution is ACI compatible, but we did not have time to get them on ACI before we went live. As a result, they will not make it to ACI.

There is always room for improvement, but I really love this solution. These devices do not give me any headaches. I design enough solutions for our company where, if they give me headaches, they come back out. It's that simple. I don't have time to keep going back and cleaning up the solutions that I've already installed.

If you want something that that is rock solid and you don't have to worry about, then go buy yourself some Nexus 9Ks. It's that simple.

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.

Our primary use case for Cisco Nexus is the data center. We use it for all of our enterprise servers, for our phone systems, and other things along those lines.

We use Cisco Nexus for high availability for one of our line control systems.

The most valuable feature of Cisco Nexus is speed compared to what you would get from a Catalyst Series switch.

The solution has room for improvement in terms of the learning curve.

We haven't had any issues with the ones we've installed initially. They're still up and running as they should be.

I don't have experience with the scalability aspect of it. In our server farms, we haven't added any since install and it's done its job. 

From where we're at, if we needed to add more effects to Cisco Nexus, we could. I don't see any issues with doing that.

Just like all the Cisco support, it's easy to get through: just open the ticket over the phone. 

They usually help us right away. We don't have any issues with working with Cisco tech support. They have resolved all of our cases.

We used an integrator reseller for the deployment called BPlus. Our experience was pretty good. Sales are straightforward. They get us a reasonable discount.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate this product an eight just because I don't have to touch it. It works.

I would recommend it from the aspect that it's been configured and we have not touched it since, aside from regular adds, moves, and changes. 

Go through someone who builds data centers for the most effective use of Cisco Nexus.

We were doing a data center migration. We extended the network from the previous location to the new location. We had about 90% of the applications work seamlessly.

Cisco Nexus helped us do an entire data center migration in under six months. The solution allowed us to be able to do that under time and budget constraints.

For a very small subset, Cisco Nexus caused port flapping within the applications, which was weird. Call it an outage. It was one specific application, i.e. because of the way the application was routed through the switches which couldn't be handled that way. 

We had the good side because 90% of it works flawlessly. We didn't have to repeat IP everything. We didn't have to go through and take everything down. We just migrated it. But that one small subset went haywire.

The stability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

The scalability of Cisco Nexus is excellent.

Cisco customer support is very good. We have very good technical support from Cisco. They get back to you in time, usually within four hours.

The setup is straightforward. I'd like to see the firmware and code upgradability to be slightly more intuitive. We are buying a new line of data center products from Cisco.

Our implementation and setup were directly from Cisco. The experience was very good. When we had a problem or needed them on the phone, they were right there.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Nexus at a ten. For the scalability, ease of use, and the way that we were able to deploy it to the data center: it worked. It was something very steady. 

Just go with it and make sure that you have your partners lined up.

Our primary use case for the Cisco Nexus solution is for the data center.

We have a much more stable network now using the Cisco Nexus.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the durability. 

Being this is the first usage, we don't have any expectations yet. 

The stability of this solution is very high.

The scalability of the Cisco Nexus is very high.

Cisco Nexus is more complex than your standard Catalyst. It's a whole different environment.

The development and the program configuration is not like what you're used to after doing Catalyst for 20 years. It has a little bit of a learning curve.

We went from the manufacturer for the deployment. We worked directly with Cisco. Our experience with them was very good.

On a scale from one to 10, I would rate the product a 10 for the stability. The durability exceeded our expectations. 

Don't discard Cisco Nexus because of the price. Take a hard look at it. I would highly recommend it

We use this solution as the fabric switches for our VMware environment.

This solution has allowed us to better prepare our network for 10-gigabit. Currently, we're a 1-gigabit network, but we have started expanding. 

The most valuable features are that it is easy to manage and it is pretty stable.

My only complaint is that not all of the ports on it are enabled from the start. We pay for twenty-six ports, and we would have to license the other ports if we want to use them. This can get expensive as you expand more.

This is a stable solution and we haven't had any issues with it. The only time that we've ever rebooted is if we had to upgrade the firmware.

We have not had any issues in terms of scalability. If we want to expand then we just have to pay to have additional ports enabled.

Cisco has always been good for technical support. We put in a ticket and they call back. It's always been pretty straightforward.

We did not use a 10-gigabit solution prior to this. The purchase of this solution was driven by the fact that we needed 10-gigabit ports, and they go to all of our devices.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. They had a couple of issues setting up the ports on the switches, but other than that it was pretty good.

We used a reseller, IP Pathways, to assist with the deployment. They were ok, but some of the solutions they have implemented for us were not done in the best way.

Our licensing fees are approximately $2,000 USD per year.

We only use a couple of different vendors, and Cisco was our only option for this type of solution.

My advice to anybody who is implementing this solution is to make sure that they have a vendor that knows how to set it up from the start.

This solution is easy to set up and we haven't had very many problems with it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use Cisco Nexus for data center requirements and interconnectivity. 

VPC is the most valuable feature for us. 

Cisco Nexus is very safe and stable. I've been here 8 months. We have some devices that have been out for 11 years.

It's scalable.

Cisco customer support is very easy and very quick. If I need to I can get somebody on the phone straight away.

I've used Ruckus, HP, Dell, and smaller products for enterprise solutions.

The hardest part with Cisco Nexus is learning new features. What would be nice is if Nexus were easier to use. Best practices in deployment would be helpful.

Cisco Nexus is just a platform. You just set it up, give it an IP, and then start configuring it. But there are a million features to configure.

I'm always thinking of the environment a little bit as I learn new things. After the initial sale, deployment I can do in an hour. Once you start trying to fork out the little kinks, it is longer.

Pay attention to what shows up in your excess logs. We try to stay current with updates. Try to keep up with that.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Nexus a 10 for stability. There's always room for improvement.

The primary use case is for a secure and reliable connection to our servers. We use Nexus to connect to servers with a large capacity and high throughput. The solution has high availability which is very important for us, and Nexus provides that.

Nexus provides the ability to visualize the servers and redundant components, like redundant supervisor modules and power supplies. The technologies like VPC (Virtual Port-Channel) really helps us to provide high availability, high throughput, and continuity to our services. That is what we want to achieve to keep our customers happy.

By improving the stability and availability it improves the way the company functions. That is what we were looking for. For very powerful equipment with a lot of throughputs and a lot of features to provide high availability.

For the Nexus solution features that we use most are the VDCs (Virtual Device Contexts) which are the virtual domain, and VPC for trunking and aggregation.

There is not much that needs to be improved at this stage. If it were possible to gain even more throughput and more port diversity, that can always be a benefit.

This solution has very good stability. The Nexus platform was selected because it is very stable with a lot of features. We are very happy with the products and the choice.

This solution scales a lot, easily. The 7000s have a huge capacity. The scalability will depend on the model you have, but the 7000s we have are very versatile. We have a lot of ports installed already and we can still add more.

I don't know if we used tech support. It could be that everything went so well that we didn't have to. But I don't know.

Previously, we had other switches (I don't know exactly which vendors as that was before I was with the company) and those were very a big investment. These new ones are not cheap, but provide more value for the money.

We had to go through different steps and that made the setup a little more complicated than it would have been if we could have deployed in one shot. We had to deploy in a few steps so it took more effort. It doesn't detract from the value of the end product.

We used partners to do the implementation. It was a very good experience. Their technical knowledge of the product was good and they integrated the box quickly. It was fast and good and would have probably taken us a lot more time had we done it on our own.

It is a bit expensive to get started. The solution is more expensive than most of the competitors for sure. But in the end, it is stable and provides a service and that meets our performance goals. So the ROI is very good.

When I came to the company they had already made their evaluations and the conversion project was already underway. I know they selected this because they felt it was the most stable solution. The route of Nexus had a lot of throughputs but it is also very reliable. We were looking for reliable, scalable technology. The point of making a change was to avoid failures and that is why we chose Nexus.

I rate the solution as a nine out of ten. The 7000 series switches, especially, I would put at nine out of ten. It is only not a ten because there is always room for improvement.

The Nexus platform is very stable. It has a lot of features and does not fail. So if you are looking for performance, stability, and reliability, the Nexus product seems to me to be the best solution.

The solution's speed and efficiency help improve the productivity of our organization.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the hardware engine itself.

The product could be improved with a friendlier GUI.

It is a good product and it is very stable.

It is easily scalable.

The technical training for product use was good.

The installation was completely straightforward. We were familiar with previous models so this was the same or very similar.

We used a reseller for the integration and had a good experience with them. 

From my perspective and level of involvement in the deployment and use, I would rate this solution an eight out of ten based on the scalability, functionality, and ease of use.