Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points Reviews

I resell Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points to my clients and I am also a partner.

What I like the most about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is the breadth of the portfolio. I think that is the key selling point and always has been with Cisco. You can essentially have an access point that fits any potential use case and with a large range of antenna options. You can then address various RF use cases as well. I think Cisco leads the market with that.

The impact of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on operational efficiency in managing my wireless network is notable. They are working together better. Again, it's that integration challenge that is slow moving, but it is improving.

What I dislike about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points primarily revolves around unified management. I would suggest generally improving how the solutions are managed in conjunction with the rest of the networking ecosystem.

Regarding pricing, I think that Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are probably at a premium versus some of the rest of the market, but it does not really put off our target markets, I would say.

Regarding the AI-driven insights from Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I think it is nascent in that these features are still fairly new and not hugely adopted, and there is still trust being built on how to use them. I think there is great potential there, but I think it is still early and a bit of the wild west. I think we just need to see more of it and they need to be more deeply integrated and have support for more external tooling as well.

I have contacted technical support regarding Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I would say it is in line with the rest of the market. If you need to manage the support cases well, you need to have an understanding of how their operations work to get the most and best out of it. If you do not advocate that strongly, then you are probably not going to have an optimal experience. But generally, it is acceptable.

In the review, I give a score of seven to the support for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I have used products similar to Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I have worked with pretty much all of the Gartner Magic Quadrant solutions over the years, including Aruba, HPE, Mist, Extreme and many others that have gone by the wayside as well.

The deployment of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is not too difficult. It could be a little bit better compared to some of the competition, but I think mostly it is pretty easy these days.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points can require maintenance on my end. If something breaks, then it is certainly going to need a bit of maintenance.

I do see an effect of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on network reliability and the end-user experience. That is part of the technology. Probably the main thing we get asked for is poor wireless experience and this is where these solutions really drive improvements in these areas.

As for my zero trust strategy, I think Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points help with that in a significant way. I think it is part of the overarching stack and it is a primary point of access. So it needs to be considered in client strategies and certainly will be as a key priority at C-level. Anything that Cisco can do that has more of a platform approach rather than a point product approach that includes zero trust within network access and removes those barriers and improves operational capability will, I think, be greatly received by the market.

I have not used the real-time location precision with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I give this review a rating of nine out of ten.

The major use case is to couple that with the WLC wireless controller and push the different SSIDs on these access points to permit different devices and endpoints to connect to it.

Stability is what really stands out in the product, and what I appreciate the most is that it is not a hybrid solution—Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is a Cisco solution with the WLC controller solution, unlike Alcatel-Lucent which uses the kernel of Aruba.

DNA is a tool to manage all the devices in the same network, and the DNA center, which we call DNAC, automates a lot of things through this solution to push the configuration on different devices including switches, access points, WLCs, routers, and firewalls. We also use it for management to locate the equipment in a large network of thousands of devices by tagging and MAC addresses to troubleshoot which device gives us monitoring issues.

I do not see support for advanced wireless technologies like Wi-Fi 6 and IoT applications. There is nothing to add on this technology.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately ten years.

If the version is stable, then Cisco is very stable. Instability can be caused by not having a stable version.

All devices depend on the version. The campus network requires stable versions for all equipment to function properly.

Scalability depends on implementation and varies between campus and collapsed mode environments.

The support is good, and I would give them a nine.

Many clients migrate from Cisco to Aruba, possibly due to budget.

For the installation complexity, I would rate it a six or seven depending on the skills required to implement it.

I can see some ROI here, although I do not know the exact percentage of ROI.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is medium-priced and not very expensive.

Cisco is not similar to FortiGate as it does not use the same protocol. Cisco is similar to Aruba when coupled with ClearPass for authentication and TACACS.

In these last ten years, the projects I made were for customers, but right now, I am a client and a customer.

Cisco Wireless support for IoT is good and effective.

We do not use AI analytics in Cisco Wireless right now. We do not have that requirement.

I do not have any experience with Bluetooth Low Energy.

For the access points or the controller, I do not see any areas for improvement or any drawbacks.

There is not much in terms of potential improvement for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. The product is good on wireless.

When we connect the access points to the LAN and they are connected to the WLC, upgrading the WLC also upgrades the access points. We upgrade frequently for security.

It is very hard to hack when the access points are coupled with ISE for authentication. Security depends on the implementation for security measures.

I am satisfied with security measures.

Aruba is less expensive, which could explain the migration.

We have it on-premise now after migrating the WLC 9800 VM to 9800M.

We have been using Azure for Teams and Umbrella solutions, and also depending on Office 365.

I see two tendencies: installation complexity requires expertise and migration to Aruba is likely due to pricing.

There are no other problems, only those issues.

I would rate this review an eight overall.

We tend to use Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as a way of wireless connectivity at either home offices or even at little remote locations.

What I like the most about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is that they're powerful. You can basically replace a bunch of small APs with just one AP in a big conference room, and the coverage is awesome.

My impression of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points' ability to handle high-density environments with Wi-Fi six, six e, and seven is that it's pretty good because it has nothing to do with Cisco, but with Windows and other systems, sometimes there was a registry hack to get it to work with Wi-Fi six, but it seemed to work pretty well once everything was enabled correctly.

The integration of security features with Cisco Security Stack has helped me to reduce risk in some ways. You can apply the access list to the wireless devices, but we tended to use more of an SD WAN type device at the edge, and then the APs would just be inside the building. So when we were using it, it wasn't really doing a whole lot of security except for guest wireless, where you don't allow it to get to the internal network, only outbound. However, it's very easy to configure in the dashboard.

In terms of network reliability and end user experience with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, if someone walks through an area that has a lot of metal, they'll lose connectivity, but I actually think it improves the overall experience because users can be mobile. They can walk around, move their laptops anywhere they want, and they don't have to be stuck in one spot connected to an Ethernet cable.

Something I dislike about Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is that they're a little heavy, so when you're mounting them, you have to be really careful to make sure they're mounted on something metal or something that you can actually connect it to. You can't just put it in a ceiling panel or something, because if you do that, it'll end up falling out.

It's been over a year since I've touched Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, but at my previous company, we were using the 9185 model. We were using them through the Meraki dashboard instead of the Catalyst way.

Regarding the overall stability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I think it's actually pretty good. When I used it, it was pretty stable. Even if you lost a bad Ethernet cable, as long as it has some power or backup battery, it would use a neighbor as the hub, so it would still keep working.

I think Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are very scalable. You can add multiple SSIDs if you wanted to, and you can place them in multiple remote offices all using the same SSID. The only downfall we saw when I did that is that from the dashboard, you basically have to create a different group for each office because they had to use DHCP locally at each of the offices due to needing to do a tunnel type thing.

In terms of technical support, I've contacted Cisco's technical support, and I think they're pretty good. It always depends on who you get, but once you get the right person, it's usually pretty good support.

Right now, my current company is using Aruba as an alternative to Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points. I actually prefer Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points more than Aruba because it's easier to manage. You have just one single spot to manage everything.

The initial deployment for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is very easy.

I remember the last time I installed Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, it took maybe five minutes because you just basically register it when you purchase it. As long as it's registered in the account in Meraki, you just assign it to whichever location or group that you want it to be in, and that's it. It just takes a couple of clicks.

As for maintenance, we set it to auto-update, and it auto-updates itself during low traffic times, so it doesn't require much attention.

When I was using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I was at a place where there was only a team of about three people, so we had to do pretty much everything, improving the interaction between network, data center, and application teams.

For the overall score for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I would give them a nine because I never think anyone's perfect.

It's just a one person job for deploying Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for about three to four years. My main use case for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points involves being part of the design team that designs wireless systems integrating into base LAN systems.

Regarding my main use case, typical design operations include placement and conducting heat maps, as well as collecting data for those heat maps. I typically put Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points in enterprise manufacturing facilities.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are typically placed into Voice over IP, PoE, and LAN systems. I usually design them as part of a complete turnkey integrated solution, whether in an enterprise premise LAN scenario or a hyperscale data center scenario.

The best features of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points include the dual-band frequency. However, I have not worked with this model as much on the integrator side as I have on the design side. Most of my experience has been speccing them in, and since they have only been out for a few years, I have not had the chance to work with as many of them in the field. In terms of features and how they apply to integration, I may not be the best person to answer that question, unless the current models will offer Wi-Fi 7, which would be a great feature to have.

The compatibility of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points streamlines my day-to-day workflow because it typically fits into an overall system design. The benefit is that products work well with each other as long as I stay within the same product line. If I am designing a system, it includes ensuring everything is compatible from the design layer, and Cisco does a good job of keeping all equipment advancing together, which definitely streamlines designing a turnkey solution.

Wi-Fi 7 impacts my designs and the performance of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points positively because I can put different VLANs on different bandwidths, and it cuts down on interference, allowing information to be sent out at different frequencies without them interfering with each other.

I would not add more about needed improvements for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points except that mounting hardware can always improve. Other than maybe improving the mounting hardware and configuration interfacing, there are no additional improvements that come to mind.

I have been working in my current field for twenty years.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points have not impacted my organization positively in a way that I can identify. Manufacturers roll out the next best thing, and the industry adapts. If I do not keep up with the latest advancements, it can cause compatibility problems. I do not have a clear answer on how they have impacted my workflow or my industry; it all comes down to speccing in a product that works with the systems I have to work with. If anything, the availability of that product can be the best match for the switchgear and configurations currently in use, and Cisco does a good job at keeping all gear in lockstep with advancements so I do not encounter problems.

From a design standpoint, Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are compliant with pretty much every modern standard that applies to me. It fits in and does its job from where I sit. I am a system designer, not an IT person, so I do not maintain the systems as much as I design and spec the products in. From a design perspective, it is a straightforward situation.

Regarding the AI capabilities of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I think their governance and security are good. From what I have heard, the accuracy and reliability of output from Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points in terms of AI-driven insights or analytics seems pretty good. However, from the design layer, that is probably something the integrators or even the internal IT people would be able to answer better than I could. This solution has not helped improve the interaction between my network, data center, and application teams in any measurable way that I can identify.

My impression of Cisco is that, other than just not creating unnecessary bottlenecks, they do not cause any problems that I am aware of. I would rate this review ten out of ten.

My main uses for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points involve bringing all of our clients online. I work at a community college, so we have a fair amount of students and faculty and staff that use the platform.

I appreciate the flexibility of the platform, being able to add more infrastructure as needed.

In the hybrid and distributed enterprise networks, we face specific challenges that Cisco addresses. We have a hybrid environment where the majority of our infrastructure is on-premises and a small piece of that which is cloud-based through Meraki. This fits the bill for whenever we need to do some quick expansion.

I assess the impact of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points on operational efficiency in managing our wireless network as fairly simple, and it is gaining a lot more simplicity through the cloud. With our Meraki capabilities, we have a lot more metrics and visibility that we would not have without having a lot of expertise in-house. This automatically provides us with what we need.

My impression from the end-to-end visibility offered by Cisco is very good. We have been happy with it.

Cisco optimizes the experience in a hybrid or distributed enterprise setup. With the hybrid configuration, there are always improvements being made with our cloud-based controlled system that prevents us from having to have a lot of expertise in-house. It helps us automatically in the cloud.

I assess the stability and reliability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as very solid. It is tried and true, it has been tested, and we have had no problems whatsoever with that particular platform.

I assess how well Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points scale with the growing needs of our organization as very easy for us. We have grown a lot over the last couple of years, and we continue to grow with our expansion of outdoor coverage. It has been very helpful.

For customer service and Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points in general, I would probably rank both of those a nine or ten.

Prior to adopting Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, one of the biggest things for us was outdoor coverage. We struggled a lot with that at the campus, so that has really been growing for us and has been a lot easier, again, using the cloud-controlled piece of the infrastructure.

I would describe my experience with deploying Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points as having not too many challenges. Deployment is always very simple for us. From a physical standpoint, they have been pretty consistent with their hardware. Lifecycle management of the old for the new has been pretty compatible, so it makes it very easy for us when we go to do replacements or supplemental installs.

I have seen a lot of ROI.

My experience with pricing, setup costs, and licensing was overall good.

I give this review a rating of ten out of ten.

My current use case for Catalyst 9100 Access Points is that we have offices, and we use it for our clients in their office spaces, mainly.

The features in Catalyst 9100 Access Points that I have found most valuable include that it's a complete solution; we go with Cisco because you have access points, you have a controller, you have Cisco ISE, and you have Cisco DNA Center. So all of these are part of one big solution.

These are very robust in the sense that they are quite stable. They provide higher throughputs and excellent performance. They are reliable and remain stable for years.

I am using remote troubleshooting in my network.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points is a very useful product, but it's quite an old one. Some quality of service features could be added as a high-end technical feature. The traffic analyzer is something which is quite useful.

We do some sort of rate limiting, per user, per AP. It needs to be more flexible when it comes to bandwidth allocation.

I suggest that Cisco can add functionality where the user should be able to allocate specific bandwidth at a user level. For example, if there are 10 users with limited internet bandwidth, that bandwidth should be able to be allocated equally to all users.

I have been working with Catalyst Access Points since the beginning, approximately three years now.

I would rate the stability of Catalyst 9100 Access Points as a nine.

I would rate the scalability of Catalyst 9100 Access Points as a nine; it's quite a scalable product from that point of view. Although we do not have a very big environment, it's quite scalable.

Technical support from Cisco has been a bit degraded lately because the first support we get is challenging. Eventually, we get into the Cisco TAC, and they give us the right technical person who is then able to resolve our queries. Initially, it is challenging.

Neutral

I would rate the initial setup for Catalyst Access Points as simple; it's been the same for at least 10 years. It's essentially unchanged and pretty much simple.

When comparing Catalyst switches and access points with other vendors, specifically Aruba, Cisco has an edge. The solution is complete, and the stability gives it an advantage.

I am aware that Catalyst 9100 Access Points are used for IoT applications, but at the moment, we are not using it. We may implement this in the future.

Regarding DNA software, now named Catalyst Center, we are using the assurance feature. The DNA Center provides wireless assurance, which we find useful.

I have recently enabled AI-driven analytics in Cisco.

I am aware of the Bluetooth Low Energy tracking capabilities feature.

Cisco access points support all the standard security requirements which are applicable.

We obtain Cisco access points through partners, as we are partners and we resell it to our customers.

I rate Catalyst 9100 Access Points a nine out of ten.

I use Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points to provide Wi-Fi to users within a certain connection limit. The current wireless controller is the 9198, and all access points join to this wireless controller.

I can configure the Wi-Fi username and password for corporate Wi-Fi or guest Wi-Fi on the wireless controller, allowing users to connect with their credentials and access the internet without any issues.

For all sites, I need to create a diagram that shows where each device is located, what cables are connected, and which ports they connect to. This diagram helps the site identify cable locations and assists engineers in their work.

The configuration must be correct in the wireless controller to handle high-density environments with Wi-Fi 6, 6E, and Wi-Fi 7. Before implementation, I conduct pre-checks on what will be established in the environment. After completing these pre-checks, I obtain confirmation from the client and coordinate with Cisco to ensure the implementation will not negatively impact anything.

To improve network performance and reliability, I need to configure network monitoring tools to check network performance and reliability. If any link goes down or packet flow issues occur, I can check in the monitoring tool and raise a case with ISP vendors to address the issues.

Regarding integration and network security management, I currently have no integration affecting security. The overall environment's security would be stronger with proper implementation. If I implement anything, those IPs need to be allowed at the security firewall level for access.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points could provide more automation instead of requiring manual work. I already have DNAC available to facilitate this, so more configuration needs to be done through automation.

The reliability and end-user experience sometimes face issues as end users experience Wi-Fi connectivity problems. When this occurs, I log in and ask the user to share their screen to identify the issues they are facing, and I am often able to resolve them. If I cannot resolve the issue, I raise a case with Cisco for joint troubleshooting.

Regarding AI insights, they help improve my troubleshooting capabilities, but they still need improvement from an AI perspective.

I have been using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for approximately four to five years.

The reliability and end-user experience sometimes face issues as end users experience Wi-Fi connectivity problems. When this occurs, I log in and ask the user to share their screen to identify the issues they are facing, and I am often able to resolve them. If I cannot resolve the issue, I raise a case with Cisco for joint troubleshooting.

For scalability, I would rate it an eight out of ten.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

In terms of pricing, Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points are quite expensive, but they are worth the investment because once acquired from Cisco, the support and service are excellent.

Compared to other wireless vendors, Cisco Wireless is more user-friendly.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points have not had much effect on my zero trust strategy.

To improve interaction between my network, data center, and application teams, I already have the firewall, which provides security. All network devices have been configured with hardening, including AAA configuration to help with secure access and logging.

There is not much maintenance required. If any device is out of warranty, I need to replace that device. The wireless controller needs to be upgraded if there is any vulnerability, and Cisco releases a new version accordingly. When upgrading, I need to check the compatibility of the access points before proceeding.

For the number of users per site, if it is a small site, ten to fifty members will use the Wi-Fi, and if it is a large site, three hundred to four hundred users will use it.

I recommend Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points to other users because they are more user-friendly, allowing for easy learning and troubleshooting. I rate this product a nine out of ten overall.

We have recently deployed hundreds of access points in the last two years.

In my personal opinion, Catalyst 9100 Access Points are a good access point. While there are fewer options in our market and enterprise customers in the financial sector prefer Cisco, I think Juniper and Fortinet are also good. The reliability of Cisco is the number one aspect I have seen, and the performance is pretty stable. Even though Catalyst 9100 Access Points have all the features other access points possess, they are a very reliable solution for various environments.

Wi-Fi 6 is good, and IoT applications are also functioning well. There were a couple of problems with iPhones, but they were sorted out, and we have not encountered any major complaints. Initially, older models such as 2800s had connectivity issues due to firmware, but after introducing Catalyst 9100 Access Points, most problems have ceased.

I am satisfied with the security capabilities of Catalyst 9100 Access Points, but the security features do help reduce some network vulnerabilities.

Frankly, ease of use is one of the things that needs improvement, as the management interfaces have always been complex and not very intuitive. I believe Cisco needs to enhance its visibility solutions, just like FortiAnalyzer from Fortinet, which has put considerable effort into monitoring. Cisco is currently working on this but tends to have complexity when it comes to graphical interfaces, so I think they need improvement in ease of use.

Particularly in the AI area, knowing that Juniper offers comprehensive AI features for problem detection and detailed visibility, I think Cisco needs better AI tools, similar to what Juniper provides with Mist. Cisco claims they are embedding AI, but they still lag behind.

It is not that complex, but I believe there is a bit of difficulty when compared with other solutions.

I do not believe that Catalyst 9100 Access Points lag far behind in stability, placing them among the top three, so I would rate them an eight.

For scalability, I also rate it the same, an eight, reflecting the ability to expand the network efficiently.

For technical support from Cisco, I think it is pretty good, but support from all vendors seems to be lacking compared to five to ten years ago. Still, I believe Cisco offers one of the best support teams available.

Neutral

We just keep it.

This is going to be the first time we will deploy it, as we have not deployed it yet. We just received an order for NDO, Nexus Dashboard, which is the alternative from which one can manage the ACI. We have not deployed Cisco ACI yet.

I rate the price for Cisco a two, indicating a high price point.

HP Aruba and Juniper offer very good solutions, especially with their integrated ClearPass.

I think Juniper and Aruba are very good contenders in the market; however, since Cisco has a strong presence here, the resources of Juniper and HP are not as robust, making Cisco the preferred choice.

I am currently working with Fortinet, but frankly, I have a team which is more working on Fortinet and other products because I am managing them, so I am a little less hands-on right now.

Basically, we are a system integrator company, and we provide solutions to customers regarding security, networking, virtualization, and storage. In security, we are working with Fortinet, Trend Micro, Palo Alto, and CrowdStrike, while in networking, we are more geared towards Cisco and also have a few other networking products, with Cisco being at the top.

We have work experience with Palo Alto and Cisco, where we have deployed Cisco SD-WAN and Cisco firewalls, meaning we have worked with almost the majority of Cisco products, including Cisco EDR and routers.

We work intensively with several vendors including Cisco, Huawei, H3C, and Fortinet, where we have made a lot of deployments for clients. In networking, we have also worked with Aruba and HP Aruba wireless, and when discussing the security side, we have worked with Citrix, Trend Micro, Fortinet, Palo Alto, and Cisco. Moreover, we have deployed BeyondTrust for PAM and Cisco email security, and for proxy and internet gateways, we have deployed Saintfort, Kaspersky, and Symantec.

Catalyst 9100 Access Points are for indoor use. It shows us all client-related problems from onboarding to every stage, including authentication issues. Previously, there were many obstacles, but now we have given a customer Catalyst Center deployment for proof of concept, and they have agreed to buy it. It is a very effective solution because not many other solutions, including WLC, provide such detail, especially with thousands of clients connected. Additionally, we use Telegraf for telemetry, which extracts a lot of information from the WLC, allowing us to build detailed monitoring systems through Grafana visualization.

We have not worked much with AI yet, although it is powerful. Cisco is focusing heavily on AI, particularly with Hypershields in security. However, until now, we have not explored their AI features deeply. We do use AI in security areas with EDRs such as Cisco Stealthwatch and NDR, but from an observability and analytics perspective, we have not delved into that much.

My overall review rating for this solution is seven.

I use Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for the basic purpose of providing working infrastructure using Wi-Fi.

I consider the RF condition to be one of the biggest advantages of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, as we must monitor for co-channel interference from other wireless devices.

Remote troubleshooting through DNA Center helps with network troubleshooting because it makes troubleshooting easier than before due to log analysis. We do not need to manually collect work from the WLC or from the client, which is more useful than traditional methods.

AI analytics in Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points helps to optimize network performance by monitoring and troubleshooting client issues.

The security measures are useful because they help reduce network vulnerabilities without needing to manually check for specific versions with vulnerabilities.

The biggest benefit from Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for me and my clients is that it has many options for tuning the configuration and the radio profile for wireless.

I have not yet deployed Wi-Fi 6E regarding its impact and support for IoT, though some customer endpoints already support Wi-Fi 6. I have only deployed some other devices, not almost all for IoT.

There is not much information available for DNS deployment. Additionally, I recently deployed an access point type 166 that has three radios, but in my country there are some limitations to enabling slot six radio, so I have difficulties in enabling all channels in radio slot one.

I have been working with Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for approximately three years.

Stability depends on the customer environment. I think Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is stable for now, though I have heard or seen about some downtime, glitches, and latency.

I would say it is 90 percent stable.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is a scalable solution.

The technical support from Cisco is acceptable.

I would give the support a rating of nine points on a scale from zero to ten points, where ten points represents very good support.

The deployment process itself is complex because we need to ensure that software requirements are running. However, there is not much information on how to deploy DNA Center.

I think Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is an affordable solution regarding pricing.

My main use case for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is deployment in different areas, such as sites. Some are installed in a stadium, some in rec centers, and some in an office environment.

The main use case for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is that we need to increase the bandwidth and provide better connectivity with the newer technology using WPA3 and Wi-Fi 7.

Wi-Fi 7 and WPA3 connectivity has made a difference for my organization as it allows for better and faster connectivity. The multi-gig network allows a five gig uplink from the access point back to the switch, which provides more bandwidth for the user.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points has positively impacted my organization by providing better coverage, resulting in fewer coverage issues.

Improved coverage has impacted my users by resulting in fewer coverage area drops and fewer complaints from the end users.

The best features that Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points offers include Wi-Fi 7 and WPA3 connectivity with multi-gig network connectivity.

At this moment, I am not able to find any deficiency that needs to be addressed regarding Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points.

I would like to see a Cisco embedded wireless controller on these access points enabled, so we can take advantage of these APs where there are no controllers available on-site.

I have been using Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points for just over six years.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is stable.

The scalability of Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is quite a bit scalable and we have no issues so far.

We have opened up multiple TAC access cases with Cisco, and we were able to get on-time support from them.

Previously, we used a different solution, which was the older generation APs, including Cisco 3800, 2800, 2700, and 3700 models.

We decided to switch from those older Cisco models to Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points because they were end of life.

Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points is deployed on-premises in my organization.

It is too soon to get the return on investment for Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points; it will need more time to gauge that.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been that it is a little on the higher end, but EA licensing could have been improved.

Before choosing Cisco Wireless 9100 Access Points, I did not evaluate other options.