Cisco Wireless Reviews

We work at a courthouse, however, we manage the data for the entire county. We have them at the Sheriff's office. They use them in commissary purchases, which is a separate SSI and separate VLAN. That's to segregate wireless traffic for different groups of people per their needs. 

We have lawyers that maybe need to reach back into the network and access their documents when they take a laptop to the courtroom with them. And so through that, we've done some radius authentication. Therefore, it's not just an SSI ID. They actually have to log in with credentials as well. 

Then, we have a guest SSID just for general public access, and that's basically running wide open. We do have a simple password audit, however, everybody knows it, and that's separated by VLAN as well and run through Palo Alto. We also have a whole different SSID for patrol units for the Sheriff's office, where they upload car videos and update their car computers wirelessly. We use it broadly. 

The solution has let us get network access to more people in different locations where wires aren't feasible - like in a garage or for the Sheriff's office uploads in courtrooms. In some of these courtrooms, you can't run additional wire due to the fact that they're historical buildings. You have to have wireless. Also, you have lawyers walking around and you don't want them tripping over stuff. It's useful in every aspect of getting public access - even for when there are events in the square, across from the courthouse. It's basically helped us better serve everybody and provided them with network access.

It always runs, and it's very reliable in terms of performance. They are very, very robust, very rugged, and can handle indoor or outdoor coverage. We typically don't have too many problems with the hardware.

The wireless LAN controllers at the time when we started rolling out, we went with it simply due to the fact that everything else worked that was Cisco. We figured, if everything else works and we're satisfied with it, let's go that route. However, now people want more access points and more spots. And if you give everybody coverage, the cost is crazy high. You can either say, "No, we can't," or you can go with the cheaper product, even slightly cheaper, plus you get more APs out there for more coverage.

At least with the WLC 2500 that we've been using, you can't take just the stock AP from them. You have to use lightweight firmware. You turn it into a lightweight AP and then you can join it to, or provision it to, the wireless controller, which should be automatic. In most cases, it works pretty well, however, it's still not there yet, as far as plugging it into this network that's going to tunnel back to the controller. I would say it works 7 out of 10 times. For the price, it should be a 10 out of 10. Especially with Cisco running an entire Cisco network with CDP all over the place, there should be no reason it doesn't tunnel back every single time. And yet, there are a few times where it doesn't.

It got to the point where, when I prevent in APs, I just take them directly to the switch that the controller is plugged into and provision them there instead of just plugging them in like you should be able to. 

The software on offer is not great. Cisco lacks in software updates, surprisingly. They don't update their firmware too much for the controller. This is not something you want to be done constantly as it does make downtime, however, I would like to see them more than once a year. Unless there's a critical flaw, or you're running an early release. They're their main releases, I want to say year after year, it's been maybe once a year, and then you have to push it out to all your APs. 

Their software's really clunky. It's not very user-friendly, which you can see that as a good thing and a bad thing. We should learn this stuff, but at the same time, it shouldn't be overly difficult. You shouldn't have your options hidden in menus. You shouldn't have to go 25 minutes deep to get to some security options for a specific SSID. 

Also the way the group their security settings is a little bit backward to me. It's not done by SSID. There's just a security tab. Then, you have to link back and forth through that. However, that's something that you're going to fight with through every controller, every different type of device. We all wish they were organized differently. 

We originally started using the solution in 2014.

We had one before then as well. Since we've gone wireless, or implemented wireless throughout the buildings here, we've always used Cisco. This is just a Cisco shop. 

The solution is extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The one issue we did have was with their mesh radios. I'm not sure that it was with the radio itself, the software in the radio. They run two different firmware. One is autonomous firmware, which they use with their AP line and then lightweight APs. With the autonomous one, there's no consistency there. For the indoor APs, you'll have lightweight firmware that you need on them. And then for the outdoor mesh radios, they're not fully autonomous, yet you have to have the autonomous software on them for the mesh feature to function. That's a little bit convoluted and I kind of wished that would just have it one way or the other.

The solution scales easily.

The number of users varies. Some days we have court cases and then you have jurors, lawyers, the media people. It varies widely. I would say on average, we have possibly 200 people a day on a slow day using it. And then on an extremely busy day, it could double that.

We use the solution quite extensively.

We do plan to increase usage, however, it won't necessarily be with this product. We'll probably like to go with a different product based on price and licensing.

Technical support is 10 out of 10. Cisco tech support is one of the best supports I've ever dealt with.

The initial setup was very straightforward. As we have added SSIDs, when we have had a hardware failure, the re-setup, for instance, is a bit more involved. When the controller itself was acting kind of finicky, we did an overnight request and got one in. Re-uploading that configuration was not as easy if that makes sense. If you're setting up a brand new device, it's very easy, very straightforward. If you're trying to restore from a backup configuration, it's not as easy. We ended up actually just resetting it up from scratch.

The deployment itself likely took three hours.

We had some bugs to work out after that, however, the majority of it was up and running within three hours.

For maintenance, you only need one person (a network admin) and then a backup person, just in case that person is on vacation or something.

We handled the setup all in-house. We do have their tech support. At one point, we did get tech on the phone and were working with them. It basically came down to firmware. The one they shipped us could not downgrade its firmware to the firmware we were running on. There was no good way to make it upload the config from an older firmware. They wanted the same firmware restorations. That was kind of a pain, however, we just ended up manually going through and resetting everything, which was not too terrible.

Cisco's APs are licensed and you need to buy them. Basically, for every AP, you have to have a license. Some of the other devices do it so that they support X amount and you can buy the licenses for zero to 20, 20 to 40, et cetera, and it's a little bit more affordable. That's kind of why I was trending towards Ruckus. They handle their licensing a little bit differently. 

Every time somebody asks "How much is a wireless access point? We need wireless in this room." Well, then you tell them the cost and mention "Oh yeah, and there's a license." It's expensive.

Users purchase each AP, and that's until the end of that product's life. If you break it down over a year, it's fairly affordable. However, nobody replaces one AP, we replace them all typically at the same time. Unless one dies or they need one expanded, as far as specific costs go, it's different for indoor and outdoor ones. It might be around $100 for a license. The internal ones are far cheaper than that. 

We had looked at Meraki before, however, the cost is just astronomical. We're a local government, so there's no money. The cost of Cisco wireless controllers has always been kind of clunky. I had heard a lot of good things about Aruba, and then I heard they were bought out by HP, however, it seems like it's still good. I was leaning more towards Ruckus based on just how it handles traffic and handles the guest VLANs and that it can do SSI de-scheduling. I still need to go back and do an in-depth read on the Ruckus option. I am leaning towards that one, even though it seems like it's a close tie.

I also looked at Ubiquity, however, from what I've read, their hardware is not really up to par when you hit saturation, and on certain days of the week here, we definitely have saturated APs due to the fact that we have court cases. You can go from the usual 10 people on an AP to possibly 40 plus people, all trying to check their internet over the wireless. It gets kind of crazy on those days.

We're just a customer and an end-user.

We use the 2500 wireless controller and all the APs that go with it. 

We have Cisco switches and routers as well. We were using Cisco firewalls up until about three years ago. And then we switched to Palo Alto. As far as switching goes, still happy with their switches. They're extremely pricey, however, they last forever, and they meet a lot of government requirements that we have.

I'd recommend the solution I wouldn't hesitate to do install it if the company can afford it.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten for its ease of setup, ease of scalability, and robustness.

We have two types of controllers in our network. One is a Cisco Wireless Controller, which is software-based, and the second one is an SD-WAN Controller, which is hardware-based.

We have installed this controller in the two buildings. One is in Lahore, and one is in Karachi. In one of them, there are around 54 wireless LANs and 54 wireless routers for 200 to 300 customers, and the other one is also serving 250 to 300 customers.

We are using its latest version. It is deployed on-premises because as per the regulations, we cannot put not any controller on the cloud for the banking infrastructure. That's why we install the controller on the site.

We have installed it for secure connectivity while roaming within the building. We have four VLANs. One is the wireless one for the most senior executives. We have a grading system in the bank. The senior vice president, the executive vice president, and the president are in one group. The second VLAN or Wi-Fi is for the assistant vice president and the vice president. The third one is for all users from OG-3 officers to OG-1. The fourth one is for any guests who walk into our building, such as vendors or workers who come into the office building.

Wireless connectivity is the main feature. It is also securely integrated with ISE, which is valuable because, in the banking industry, we also cover the security aspect. This Wi-Fi controller integrates with the ISE system that we have. Every user that comes on the wireless needs to log in with the domain. If they don't, it will not allow the user to join the network. This is the key feature of this solution. If we install any other wireless, they give us MAC address binding. They also give us hardware address connectivity, but Cisco Wireless supports integration with ISE, and the ISE part is an option for the application posture. When we implement the application posture on the upper file system, if anyone connects to the network wirelessly or wired, they can only access specific applications. For example, if I give them permission only for Word and Excel, they would just be able to open Word and Excel on their laptops. If I give them access to the email system, they will just be able to open their email. This is the main benefit of the integration with Cisco ISE.

The main concern is the length and overlapping. We have to put on four to six access points on the same floor, and we face the issue of overlapping areas. If Cisco can extend the range of their indoor APs, we would need to install just one or two access points, and it would eliminate the problem of the overlapping area.

They should provide built-in features for safe authentication. Right now, we integrate with ISE and FortiClient for this feature. We first check the NAC, and after the NAC and before the domain, a token password installed on their mobile or a physical token is required to join the network. If Cisco had built-in authentication, we would be able to eliminate one product from our network.

We have been using this controller since 2012.

It is stable and reliable. In the last seven to eight years, we had zero downtime in our production environment. That's also because we have it in cluster mode. So, if one controller fails, the second one will automatically take over.

It is very easy to scale. The controller license that we currently have can handle 500 APs, but we have only 50 to 60 APs. We can just add APs and go on. We should put only 80% load on a device, so when we reach 400 APs, we need to add a controller.

We have the Cisco Wireless Controller agreement. If we face any issue, we engage our first-level support. If the issue is non-critical, such as at a branch level, we engage the second level of support. If the issue is at the core level, then we directly engage the third-level support to resolve the issue. If the issue is still not resolved, we open the case through the Cisco website, and a Cisco engineer is available. Cisco also has three levels: one, two, and three. If you have a severity level three, Cisco engages someone within 15 to 20 minutes. If the severity level is one, Cisco engages someone after two, three, or four hours. They engage as per the case severity. I am satisfied with their support.

It is straightforward. With some clicks, you can add and delete everything. It is very simple. If you have the knowledge, everything is simple. If you're untrained, you need some time to understand things.

In terms of duration, in a 10-floor building in Lahore, for a room, the cabling work and firewall configuration take three to four days. Some of the configurations can take four to five days.

We have a team of people certified in Cisco and Huawei, and we directly engage with Cisco. We eliminate other vendors, which has two benefits. One benefit is the knowledge from Cisco, and the second benefit is that it eliminates the cost of the support. When any vendor comes to your site and offers services, they charge 10% to 20% of the SLA cost.

Cisco gave us a contract team, and we directly engaged with Cisco for installation and integration. We have support at levels one, two, and three. At level four, when there is a hardware failure, we go to Cisco and open an RMA. Cisco then sends us a new product that we install personally. We don't need any vendor support.

Their maintenance is done quarterly. The hardware support team uninstalls our APs on off days, cleans them up, loads the required things, and then reinstalls them. If they find any defect in the physical box, they just open an RMA. Cisco then gives us a new product, and we install the product.

There are two people who work on the controller and access points. Customer enrollment is handled by the desktop support team, which is a 30 people team. Out of them, 10 to 15 people take care of user access. The core team has only two network guys.

The other part is the hardware support team, and for the whole bank, there are 30 to 40 people for any kind of hardware support. Any person is available to replace the AP. It is just a few-minute job. They just plug out the cable, do the installation. When APs come on the network, they directly go to the controller, and the controller updates their software and pushes the configuration. It is an easy task.

Its cost is a little bit higher than other products. Fortinet and Huawei are cheaper. If we were not a bank, I would go for Huawei or Fortinet because they are cheap, and I don't need that much security. A financial institute, a university, or a medical institute would need security to protect the customer data. That's why we buy this high-end product that has integrated security features.

I would recommend it based on the requirements. Any medical, educational, financial, and government sector can go for Cisco with closed eyes. A retail shop, store, or restaurant doesn't require Cisco. They just need internet access, and they can go with Huawei, Fortinet, Ruckus, or any other third party. You need to know your requirements before deciding on a solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.

In our warehouse, we use a wireless solution for every job we have there. For example, we have dispatch trucks or picking. They call it picking when you choose the products and go to the warehouse site of our clients. All of that operation is wireless.

They use a Vocollect solution for warehouse sites. If we don't have wireless, they don't have Vocollect and without it, they don't know how to offer dispatch for the trucks.

For plants, we have solutions for tablets. The tablets manage all of our equipment, our principal machines. That's why we need the wireless option that Cisco provides.

We use the solution for connectivity for our employees.

The deep knowledge of Cisco is its most valuable aspect. The Wireless Cisco solution has been in development for many years. That gives users trust in the solution. 

There are many engineers that know how to operate Cisco. If I choose another vendor or another solution, I have to be very careful about how much knowledge is actually there in the market. For example, if I have a problem, how easy is it to find someone, an expert, in order to do a solution for a problem? That's why we choose Cisco. There's deep knowledge there that doesn't exist elsewhere. Also, Cisco has commercial representatives in our country, in our city. It's easy to communicate with Cisco directly. With others, it's not that easy.

The integration is great. For all Cisco environments, the integration is easy. W have a lot of Cisco products. The integration between them all is simple. That's why the other company we work for or we as a team choose Cisco as a vendor.

The initial setup is easy.

We've found the solution to be scalable.

The price needs improvement. The bad thing about Cisco is about price. Nowadays it's all about delays in equipment as well. Any hardware is delayed. 

There's a delay in equipment that comes to Columbia, to our country, and that lasts almost six months. I have a project in which we have to wait for six months, seven months in order to get the equipment. That is the bad aspect nowadays.

The company I work for has been using Cisco for 20 to 25 years.

My company has so many brands and so many plants and factories. We are a multi-Latina company. We have brands in Chile, Argentina, Ecuador, Colombia, Dominican Republic, et cetera. Our inventory of Cisco equipment is almost 300 to 500 devices. There are many series there. The new branch has 91 or 92 Wireless, however, they also have old series such as the 12,000 series. It's old, too old, however, this year we are planning to fix that.

It's so scalable. For example, if I update the series, I don't have to change all my environment. I only have to change the parts that I need.

We have 5,000 employees on the product. All of them use wireless. For example, we use wireless for daily operations of the factory. 

We do plan to increase usage. This year we are planning to open a new warehouse. They are going to need a Cisco solution. Even at this moment, we have the design, or we are checking the design. We maybe will buy the solution in next month or two. That is the roadmap.

Technical support is very helpful. It's easy to reach them. We are satisfied with the level of service. 

We just have Cisco solutions. We don't have any other vendors in our network.

The initial setup is simple.

The knowledge is easy to locate. You need to click or look for a special website. You have so much information on the cloud and so much information, documents, et cetera. That's why developing a project with Cisco is easy.

If I have a big project it could take maybe four to five months, however, that's for a big project.

For deployment, maybe for a big project, we have ten people. For the operations, for support solutions, my team is comprised of five people. That's five engineers that make up my personal team.

I contract a partner to help with implementation. If I have a big project, I contract the design. 

As the first step, we contract the design. For the design, sometimes Cisco gives us the special engineers. However, in other cases, we contract the design. That design comes with a WiFi heat design. They have visual material.

The other step is to contract the solution with a partner. We send to the market an RFP, a request in order to have the best price in the market and the best partner in the market. The other step is to implement or to develop the project.

The licensing is expensive. The cost of licenses is expensive, as are other solutions. When we have a project, we have to clarify to our financial staff why we chose Cisco, as there are other, cheaper solutions. The cost of equipment is expensive.

For example, for new brand equipment, Cisco Wireless equipment, it costs $1,500 for one piece of equipment. That includes licenses, installation, and equipment. 

We looked at Meraki, however, we decided our organization was a bit too large for that particular solution. We prefer to have on-premises options.

I also test other solutions, for example, Aruba or Ubiquiti.

I am an end-user. I work for a manufacturing company. I manage the networking solution for that company.

At this moment, we are choosing Cisco as a continuous technology. Nowadays just we have our roadmap. Our plan for the next two months is to open a new branch office, and no more.

I'd rate this solution at a ten out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity.

You don't have to meddle around with licenses, considering they're onboard with the access points. That took a load off when creating a build of material for a new wireless deployment. 

We didn't exactly dig deep into these yet. However, they're fairly easy to deploy. We have been using the virtual machines, the 1900 CL virtual controller. 

They're pretty stable, pretty good.

The solution is scalable. 

I like the new troubleshooting mechanism. With a couple of clicks, you can get a PCAP file, pick up the traffic from a client, and analyze it in Wireshark notepad.

I like the new way the wireless is getting built right now, so you have groups with policies that you simply apply to an access point, or you apply a group with all kinds of features like RF policies, and SSIDs to a certain access point and the back point, that access point gets those features up and running immediately or directly after a reboot.

I would like to see centralized management, something like what Aruba offers. The current issue with Cisco is I don't have centralized management. For example, we're building wireless controllers that are basically standalone, and something like a centralized, single management pane would be nice. Something like Cisco Prime, or rather, an improved version of that would be very, very good.

The initial setup can be difficult for beginners. 

It is a pricey product.

I've been using Cisco since 2012 and the new OS since 2021.

The solution is stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze.

It is scalable and easily expands. 

We have been coving entire countries with a single deployment. We have a huge number of devices - likely tens of thousands. There's a swarm of incoming IoT devices, plus everyone who has a corporate phone is basically connected to the wireless.

I haven't contacted technical support. Considering we don't have a subscription, we're on our own. Cisco support is unlike Aruba, where it's free as far as I can tell. 

I also use Aruba. I've been working with Aruba for the past two years, sporadically now and then.

The initial setup is not something a beginner can deal with; it's not Cisco Meraki. Cisco Meraki is easy to deploy, yet limited in abilities. 

With this solution, you need to have some knowledge about wireless. The new Cisco IOx is an improvement over the IOS. The command line interface is good, and you can use it to deploy. 

I'd rate the ease of setup a three out of five.

Cisco is on the expensive side. 

I'd rate the product a three out of five in terms of affordability of the product.

They could improve their lead times. The wait time for their equipment is very long now and the pricing is very steep for Cisco.

I'm a customer. I'm an engineer in a midsize enterprise that employs 40,000 people. It's a global company spread throughout the world. Scalability and wireless is something that we are looking for right now.

This product is great for someone who is looking to improve their connectivity. Of course, new users should check whether or not this is suited for the company. There are some cheaper, smaller solutions that they could use - even Cisco's Meraki. 

The solution we are using is big due to the fact that we have 300 or 400 access points per country, so we are using 80% of its features. We are tweaking everything from RF policies, and we're using advanced-style SSIDs like 802.1X authentication via radius, on the external radius server. We are using simple pressure key authentication. We are also using captive portal authentication with Cisco ISE. And we are also currently trying to implement a more advanced form of pressure key ossification, a segmented policy-based pressure key based on Cisco ISE, which is going to be used for the IoT devices. We get a lot out of Cisco.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

There were some issues during the initial installation. You need to be very careful of the images for some reason. For example, the GUI can trick you. That's my beef with them. Sometimes not everything gets displayed correctly in the graphical user interface. One example would be I would load an image and upgrade the cluster, the virtual virus control cluster, and it would go through everything. And then after the reboot, I would see it basically didn't do anything. It didn't upgrade it. Therefore, I have to stop using the  GUI and revert to CLI. That's my concern, especially during the configuration part.

Of course, for somebody who's new to the product, the GUI is the way to go since you have everything nicely presented in the graphical user interface they really did upgrade from the previous version. They've done a good job of making the user interface somewhat friendlier and better composed than the previous versions. Yet, that's small considering that sometimes they don't display the real situation and that can be sometimes very confusing. 

We're using Cisco Wireless for patient tracking or infant abduction and security — for securing the floor and our infant patients. Cisco is also used for device management, such as IV pumps and other small but significant pieces of equipment that we need to track. We're also using it for temperature monitoring in the refrigerators for drugs and things that must be kept at a specific temperature. We use Cisco Wireless for patients' access and any wireless cart, whether it's a PC or an EKG machine. And we have different channels for stuff in the health network and the staff network versus what is publicly open for the patients and family.

For me, the most valuable thing about Cisco Wireless is its ease of use and stability. 

The biggest pain point has been keeping our people and the vendor up to speed on the technology. It's getting our staff to understand that opening up a laptop and connecting to the WLAN is not the same as triangulating and trying to figure out where an IV pump is. So when you're trying to use the real-time location services, I think it's that shift from your density and your overlap. For example, you used to be able to stick an access point up if something was a little weak in an area. Now, if you stick that access point up, you might have too much coverage in that area, which is as bad as too little coverage. I think it's hard for everybody to get their heads around that. It's not just the vendor—it's also the customers. And how do we continue to partner and ensure that we're all going together as the technology changes.

I've been dealing with Cisco for 15 years or thereabouts.

Stability's good. I'm not saying we don't end up with something flakey every once in a while, but it's not often at all.

Cisco Wireless seems to be pretty scalable. But, again, they do an excellent job of saying exactly what the coverage will be. And so we have to make sure that when someone wants to add things they understand what it means. Do I have to resurvey that whole area? Because they'll say, it was just wired for wireless access, not location tracking. So now I've got to go in and check my density and things like that. It's very scalable, but when you shift gears sometimes, you have to do more work than people anticipate.

Cisco support is good, but I think it could be better. Their collaboration with their partners is probably the biggest challenge I've had. If I have an issue with an application that runs off the Cisco network and Cisco has to work with their partner to resolve it, that gets a little hanky sometimes.

We've been using the initial one, but we've swapped it out since then, and it's been relatively painless. And when we've expanded, the new buildings get new wireless. And when we've bought new hospitals, they get new wireless. So you've got the stuff that's been in there for a long time, and you've got the stuff that hasn't been there for long at all. So we have a routine for what to do when we've got a new building.

I don't know the details about the pricing. Typically it just gets lumped into my project. So I'm not sure what we're paying in licensing fees. 

I'd give Cisco Wireless an eight out of 10. I don't know what to compare it to, but I'm hesitant to give anybody a 10. I'd give them an eight. If you are considering Cisco Wireless, I suggest looking at the total cost of ownership. This stuff doesn't last forever. So when you put it in the ceiling, when will you need to replace it? It's not a one-time investment. And then what is it going to take to get it there? Because sometimes you may end up with the impact you have every time. Hospitals are constantly renovating. Depending on what you need wireless for, you may have to spend tens of thousands re-surveying and repositioning your access points to optimize if you remodel an area. You may have thought, "Oh, I already have wireless in there. Just because I'm moving these three or four walls doesn't mean..." Well, it does mean something. The total cost of ownership matters. Make sure remediations are built into your capital budget if you're doing construction.

The support from Cisco is always excellent. It's often better than other options, including Aruba.

The product has so many features. If there are maybe a hundred features, a typical organization may only need 60 or 65 at maximum. There's a wide variety of options to choose from.  

The stability is great. It's very reliable. 

You can do multiple layers with the new OS that Cisco offers. 

The new OS streamlines the Cisco offering and it's been very good. 

The solution can scale well.

Cisco moved from the 5000 series, which was a different OS, to a newer OS, right. The 9800, for example, practically improved how a wireless switch or wireless controller should work, which was not so good in terms of Cisco in the earlier versions. It's improved a lot, however, if you are using older versions, you are on a different OS, and it's not as good as it is now. 

Older versions used to be hard to deploy. The latest OS, however, has made things a lot easier. While deployment is much better, it could always be even easier. 

The interface could be improved. 

I've been using the solution for five years or so. We used it for a while, then left it, then came back to it. 

The stability is very good. I can't find any fault. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is nice. 

We have about 10,000 to 12,000 or so users on the solution right now. 

I'm not sure if we plan to increase usage. We are already 100% covered. 

Technical support from Cisco is very good. It's always been much better than its competitors in this regard. We are quite satisfied with how helpful and responsive they continue to be. There is no equivalent on the market. They simply will not let you down.

I currently also use Aruba. I also have worked with Extreme. 

There are very similar devices and have the same features for the most part. Both are stable and excellent in terms of capabilities. Cisco, however, does offer better support.

The initial setup is now pretty straightforward. Cisco came out with a new OS that streamlined everything - including the initial setup. Where Aruba used to be easier (in terms of implementation), Cisco, with its newest updates, has very much improved and they are neck and neck in terms of ease of setup.

I can get a Cisco network up and running n 30 minutes. If someone knows how a Cisco controller works, I am sure, even with the HA, that person can build one full working controller within one hour. For me, in a lab set up with a virtual machine, in a maximum of 30 minutes, I can bring it up and make a small network work. Within one hour I can do that setup.

I can handle the initial setup myself using the GUI for the controller. 

We don't really see Cisco as a solution that provides an ROI. It's more of a required service for us. 

The licensing is usually for an average of three years, depending on what we buy.

There may be some add-ons that could cost a bit more. 

While, typically, Cisco is a little bit more costly, the costs also depend on your relationship with Cisco.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are using versions six and eight, a mix of both.

We tend to use the on-premises deployment model as we are in healthcare and there are restrictions on what we can do with the cloud and what we cannot do with the cloud.

For those considering the solution, I'd advise them to make sure the support is good in their area or for the solution you choose and that there are knowledgeable people around so that if there are any issues, they can be addressed. 

I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

One of the main advantages of Cisco Wireless is its DNAT compatibility. When we have dynamic segmentation, or the DNAT enabled on the LAN, Cisco Access Point integrates with the DNAT architecture. Aruba Switches cannot integrate with the Cisco DNAT architecture. However, if we have an all-Aruba framework in offices where we have implemented this with the complete dynamic segmentation using Aruba Dynamic Segmentation, only Aruba AP works.

Cisco can't block specific sites on the internet like Aruba, so we're in the process of replacing them. We have already placed lots of orders with Aruba. Aruba has the ClearPass NAT solution, and Cisco has its ISE policy engine. Cisco won't work with any other vendors. That is a significant problem with Cisco. It can't integrate with ClearPass. We already tried this in a POC for ClearPass. Aruba is becoming integrated with ISE, but Cisco will not integrate with ClearPass.

We've been using Cisco Wireless for more than 10 years.

Cisco Wireless has not been that stable. In the past, Cisco Wireless could handle only a small number of users per access point. Once the number of users per access point increases beyond 10 or 15, you start facing disconnection issues with the users, and the performance slows. This has been my experience in the past five years, but Cisco has made a lot of improvements in their access points over the past two years.

Now it's a multi-band network, so they have improved on that front. The connections are stable. The performance still degrades if the number of users per access point increases, but now it's 20 or 30 users on the same access point. So you have to plan your access point design and placement so no more than 20 users will be connected to one access point.

Cisco Wireless is scalable, but that depends on the definition of "scalable." I can deploy it at two offices and I can scale it to 200 offices. However, when you integrate the access point and the controller with the DNAT across multiple sites, you need a DNAT cluster, which is a costly solution. Every site has a controller, and a DNAT cluster is not a good option in a global framework. It's okay for a small office or a few offices. But when you're talking about 500 offices, the cost becomes enormous. We're using Cisco Wireless extensively right now because none of our offices are on the wired network, and we have roughly 25,000 users.

Technical support is okay. It takes some time to resolve a complex issue. But if it's a known issue, it gets settled within the time limit set by the SLA.

We have a mix of Cisco and Aruba. Aruba hardware is superior to Cisco's. Cisco cannot come close to matching Aruba in throughput, performance, and coverage area. Cisco's main advantage is integration with ISE because many organizations can't shift the NAT or the authentication part. It's very difficult or not advisable to do it.

The Access Point configuration is plug-and-play, but the controller configuration is complex. You need some skilled people to configure Cisco Wireless. The deployment strategy is it deploy the controllers initially and upgrade them over time. Our last upgrade was three years ago when Cisco released its latest OS. The DNAT integration is ongoing. 

We have our in-house network team, but we also get support from Cisco and Aruba. We have vendor support in addition to our own set of team members who are working on the deployment.

Cisco Wireless is complex, and it's not cost-effective.

I rate Cisco Wireless eight out of 10. They still need to improve in a lot of areas. For example, Cisco needs to raise the throughput. At the same time, they've made a lot of advancements in the past two years. The access points are performing better. It's stable. They've added a multi-gig port, which is increasing the throughput of the users. 

I use Cisco Wireless for education as I am managing a school. We use it for connectivity for students and teachers. It is an international private school. This is why we have to get high speed connectivity.

I have not used the solution for enough time to give a full evaluation but I will tell you the estimate - I estimate that it will reduce the time for a student to do their work and reduce the time for copying and transferring data through the local network. That's the reason that what we needed to get this hardware.

The features that I have found most valuable with Cisco Wireless is that the average connectivity for this WIFI access point is 2.5 gigabytes. That's the highest technology and highest connectivity. They started using the new technology and WIFI to get you a faster connectivity. All companies jumped from Wave 2 to WIFI 6 for the high speed.

I selected Cisco Wireless because I found they improved everything, but there is still a gap in Cisco reporting. It did not invest more into giving accurate reports. That's the missing thing in the solution. 

In the next release, they should add a better reporting feature. The reporting will tell you if you have a problem. That will make the diagnostics easier. Although, we have not had problems that required a lot of diagnostics.

I just implemented the Cisco Wireless WiFi 6 last weekend.

I would be liar if I answered if it is stable because it has only been up for two days.

But the Cisco solution overall, and Cisco Wireless generally, are 100% stable.

It is scalable. We have around 2000 students and teachers using it because we are an educational institution.

I'm the IT manager. My role as IT manager is managing the whole technology results.

We require three staff people for deployment and maintenance of Cisco Wireless - a network administrator and two IT specialists.

They are good.

I have been using the Cisco solution since 2011.

The initial setup right now of the access points to the WIFI, and to the switches are managed by FortiGate firewall and the wireless controller. So the routing is through the FortiGate firewall and the activity is through the Cisco switches managed through the wireless controller.

The plan was to upgrade the firewall and remove the old non-supported access point from the system because I used hybrid between these two and WIFI 6. Because this hardware is very expensive to get all at one time, we have a plan to replace all access points for these.

The development takes three days. But the delivery takes a long time. They take a lot of time to deliver hardware. 

We implemented with a Cisco partner. They were experts. They did all they were supposed to do and it was active within the time as planned.

Two days is not enough to see ROI.

But for the previous experience, yes, I can see ROI. The old access points stayed with us since 2015. I have some working since 2017. I removed some from the system, so I have all 2017 access points still working. That is quite a reliable system.

Any people who are looking to get a stable solution with and long life and long time connectivity should go with Cisco.

The big lesson is that when you invest in expensive hardware, you have to understand that it should be a trusted hardware to give you stability and to make sure that your investment will be returned soon. The cost of implementation and downtime with Cisco are less than with other solutions.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless a nine.