Cisco Wireless Reviews

There are a lot of valuable features and functions. One example is CleanAir to detect and troubleshoot interference issues. Another is RX-SOP to optimize roaming.

The web interface for Cisco controllers could be better. It could be more user-friendly. Sometimes I have to remember how to access some functionalities or how to enable or execute some functions. If it were more user-friendly it would save time.

I have not encountered any issues around the stability of this product. I'm satisfied with this aspect. It provides good functionality and hierarchy for a wireless network.

For the moment, I haven't had any issues with scalability.

As of now, I have not had to contact technical support. I generally resolve all problems by myself.

I moved to Cisco because it's a solution that many companies use. I already had experience with Cisco routers and switches, so it was easier to configure and to manage Cisco products.

I found the initial setup really easy because the facts, the documentation, explanations, and support are available on the internet. If I had any problem I could find the solution on the internet. There are a lot of facts and documentation there.

The ROI generally takes four to five years.

This product's pricing is good. It's not too expensive.

Whether the pricing is a good value depends on the product. I was looking for some Cisco products and found that some are expensive, like the Cisco Spectrum Expert Wireless adapter.

I have compared it with some other products like Aruba and Aerohive to see what the functionality and performance are like. I have seen, for example, that the Aerohive already has some access points in the new 802.11ax. It's the new transmission technology that provides wireless bandwidth to 4 or 5 Gbps. I haven't seen any Cisco products like that, so I think they are a little late in this regard.

I started first with the 1440, without a wireless controller in an autonomous access point. Two years after that, I moved to the 2504 Wireless Controller - a 40-access-point deployment. The next year I was working in a car manufacturer's warehouse. I managed three warehouses. One of them was a 5520 with 300 access points. Another site was with the 5508 with less than 200 access points.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at seven out of 10 because, when we compare it with other solutions like Aruba or Aerohive, Cisco is behind in technology and just a little more expensive. Aerohive, as I mentioned, has some access points in the new 802.11ax standard and Aruba, in many cases, is more user-friendly to configure and to manage.

The primary use case is for enabling the users to connect wirelessly to the network, to give them seamless mobility if they go to a meeting room. It's always-on connectivity.

Having Cisco switches in the network also benefits the wireless. Having both in the same network has advantages in regards to compatibilities. It's also pretty easy to get it up and running in a short time, so that's a big advantage. Having the same vendor, Cisco, for switches and wireless, we can roll out more features without having to worry whether they will be supported or not.

The Guest feature is pretty good.

Sometimes I've seen some issues come up with the interference. That's an issue users face at times. It becomes very complex when you have a lot of wireless interference in the area, or in your office. It's because of the environment of Cisco. Maybe, in the future, they can work on this area, and fix this issue.

The wireless controller runs smoothly, without any issues.

For Cisco Wireless, you need to have Cisco access points and a Cisco controller to get it running, but if you want to expand your infrastructure in Wireless, you just need to buy a new AP and get it installed. It's pretty easy.

Tech support for Cisco Wireless has been pretty good. They have helped us through problems.

The setup was straightforward. It's a very complex switch, but if you have a person with the ability to follow the steps, it will be up and running.

Cisco wireless is a pretty good product. I would definitely recommend buying it. If you are looking for a wireless solution I would definitely recommend going with Cisco Wireless.

I rate Cisco Wireless at about eight out of 10. It's pretty good, it's very compatible with other Cisco products.

Cisco Wireless FlexConnect mode is for branches where the traffic can be switched locally. There is centralized switching for the corporate side where the wireless controller will be in the headquarters, and the branches will only have access points. We have the flexibility to use Cisco's FlexConnect for the branches and centralized switching for the corporate network. Combining these feature ensures the traffic flow for the wireless is being controlled and provides the best wireless scenario for the branches. You don’t need to go to the controller each and every time.

Cisco Wireless technology allows us to logically segregate networks, to segregate the traffic between multiple types of endpoint devices, connected to the network. For example, corporate laptops are connected to one network, corporate iPhones will go through a different network.

With Cisco Wireless we have DNA technology for the frequency in which it operates, so that in case of any frequency interference it can look for and switch to another frequency, where there no interference.

Another feature of Cisco Wireless is that we are able to operate APs in multiple frequencies by grouping the APs into multiple groups, so we can operate the wireless in one group at 2.4 gigahertz and the other group at 5 gigahertz. This allows us to group the APs based on the business case or on the bandwidth.

There are a couple of shortcomings in Cisco Wireless right now. I don't see a policy model for the wireless technology solution. If Cisco could bring the wireless architecture around with the controls, it would lead to being able to fine-tune the configuration a little better.

Cisco Wireless' stability is quite good as of now. The recent APs are coming with a backbone of up to 5 MBPS throughput, and that is quite okay.

The scalability is good.

The technical support is good.

We need to do a site survey, AP placement, and wireless configuration: Which are we going to configure, how are we going to get it authenticated, how will we go into control? So we need to have a plan. That's not only for Cisco, it's true for whichever wireless we need to deploy. We need to have a proper plan in place, but configuration-wise it is straightforward. It is simple.

The shortlist was Aruba and Cisco. The features are more or less the same, but the cost is also important.

Cisco Wireless has been around for quite some time. Cisco is a leader and its Wireless product is very reliable, so investing in it is a safe bet.

I would rate this solution at eight out of 10 because of the availability of support, and its stability.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are the 

• product knowledge
• support from the vendor and the availability of the technical staff to support it.

We use it to distribute our internet connection. We use it in some departments for accessing systems, but in the main, it is for internet access. The performance of the network, the connection and stability, are very good. Perfect.

The main features are that it's secure and it's easy to distribute the SSID and control it. I also like the controller.

There is a problem with the controller. When we have to restart the controller, it does not show the time. We have to manually configure the time when we restart it. I have read about this issue, to get some information, and all answers are about having to connect it with a time server, which is very difficult.

As a wireless solution, it's very stable.

No issues with scalability.

I tried to get support, to get a solution for this "time" problem I mentioned. We have other Cisco products and the support is perfect. But for the wireless, we haven't gotten an answer to this problem.

We were using another option. It was not professional, something like D-Link. We had to configure each router separately. That's why we use Cisco, because I like the controller.

There is a company here, a Cisco partner or distributor. They advised us to use the system, and they brought it to us.

I have also used another Cisco product but at another company, Cisco Meraki. It's easier in terms of the configuration and the cloud. I liked it.

You only have to set up the controller and everything is working; all the configuration. I like it.

It's good to compare pricing, but it's Cisco and I trust Cisco.

I would strongly advise any company, but especially in business, to use this wireless solution.

I rate Cisco Wireless at nine out of 10 because, as I said, I like the performance, stability, the easy implementation and the controller. There is just that one problem with the controller, so that's why I gave it a nine and not 10.

The primary use is for wireless connectivity.

The most valuable feature is the coverage. Also, the management provides the most important security features in these devices.

The GUI could be made more user-friendly. There should also be a dashboard where it can showcase how many end-users are connected to a particular access point.

We have not run into any issues related to stability.

Technical support has been very good.

We feel that it's complex in terms of manageability. You require a skilled person to handle it.

The ROI is good because the stability is so good from Cisco.

I feel the product's pricing is a good value.

We did not evaluate anything else because Cisco is a brand name for networking devices.

When implementing this solution, you require the right partner to be in place to support it, that is the first requirement.

I would rate this solution at nine out of 10. The best part of the solution is the stability. Also, the easy usage of the switches They are automatically switched on and get their configuration. I don't need any technical person to look at it.

I have deployed it in a factory. I have a lot of people who come to visit from all over the globe. People come from Southeast Asia, from Europe, from South America, from the US, etc. We need to have a common platform wherein people who visit are able to log in to the corporate network. They do not need to do a guest login, they can just log in as they usually do. That's the primary use.

Since we have a central server from which our authentication is run, a user who comes from, let's say, California, doesn't have to ask any for credentials. He just comes to my network, logs in with his own username and password, and he gets access to his database. Authentication has played a big role for us, and it has given us mobility.

My IT staff no longer has to look after catering to clients who come from overseas. My staff members are busy doing their own work, and that overseas client or any other person is able to do his work without intervention from IT. This authentication scenario has saved us a lot of problems. Earlier, we had to create a guest user, give him a VPN, ensure that he logged in to his own network, and that he got access to his data. We don't have to do that now.

Authentication is the important feature for us.

There are certain features which I would want which are not there. There is always a wish list, that my WiFi should give me one, two, three, four, five. Certain things come, certain things don't, and certain things come at a cost. It fulfills about 75-80 percent of what I'm looking for. Things on my wish list are available at an additional cost but I can live without those thing, so I'm fine with it. 

It has been a fairly stable network, I have not had many problems with it. We had to upgrade the iOS once or twice, but that's about it. After that, we have not really had a problem.

We had to upgrade our access points. It's had been about six or seven years that those had been in. Scalability-wise, some of the old iOS is not supported on the new controller, but that's fine. We accepted that and we now have two products. We now have a 3800 deployed.

We have had a decent experience so far with Cisco technical support. We've not had any issues, so I would say the support has been good.

Before this solution we did not have any wireless solution, we had a stand-alone wireless. My global team wanted Cisco, so we went with Cisco. But, in a couple of other places, we've used Aruba and we're quite satisfied with it as well.

But it's something like when you prefer a certain flavor of coffee. It's not that you don't like the other coffee, but you like coffee A better than coffee B. It's just the comfort level or maybe you feel better with a certain product. So there's nothing wrong with the product that I'm currently using. I'm using Cisco and I'm quite satisfied with it. Otherwise, given a choice, given the funds, if someone were to say, “What is the next thing that you would like to move to?” because my experience with the alternate product has been really good, I would switch to that.

The setup is not really complex. It was quite easy. We had to refer to a couple of things, but I come from a background where I have that kind of experience, so it was easy for me.

The pricing is okay. I believe it is competitively priced. But it is not just the price by itself, it's the price and the technical features. The features also play a big role. It has to give me the relevant output. That is more important. Price is secondary. Price will not play a very big role because if it does not deliver what I need... For example, if I were to buy a car without an engine, that's still a car, but it is of no use. I might as well buy a car that works.

They have simplified the licensing. Now there is a single license that is required. Earlier, multiple licenses were required. Single licensing is good. As a customer, I don't need to keep an inventory of multiple licenses.

Up until now, it has been a good product, so go ahead with it. It works well. We have been happy with it for the last four years.

We use it to provide Wi-Fi solutions at business centers, malls, for healthcare, and in public parks.

For me, there are two important features:

1. WLAN grouping – Allows us to have different groups and, within those groups, specific WLANs, so there is no overlapping.
2. FlexConnect – Enables us to have remote offices at different locations. We can have a central WLC to control all the locations.
   

There is room for improvement regarding HA issues and Radius integration.

No real issues with stability. It’s pretty stable. We can have a backup, and restoring is easy.

Scalability depends on the design. It supports most variations like VOIP and Multicast. At times, we may face interference issues with other devices like 3G, 4G, or smartphones.

Cisco TAC (technical assistance center) is one of the best tech support teams around.

I did use HPE's Aruba solution, but not that extensively.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who knows VLAN and radio/frequency concepts can set it up. It’s pretty self-explanatory.

Pricing is a bit on the high side compared to its competitors but we have to consider the support and usages of the solution.

Licensing is now RTU and smart licensing. We need three types of licenses, one for the:

• APs
• HA
• controller.

HPE Aruba.

I would rate Cisco Wireless at eight out of 10 because of its ease of installation on virtual platforms, on appliances. It is easy to maintain and configurations are straightforward. It provides the flexibility to create and integrate with many social Wi-Fi solutions. It is a reliable and stable solution. The ROI is very good.

Identity PSK helps save SSIDs.

The software quality could be improved, in particular for the new Cisco Aironet Series 2800/3800 Access Point which is pretty Linux-based.

We have encountered issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support could be improved. It really depends on the TAC engineer you happen to have on the phone.

Previously we used Cisco WiSM and then WiSM2.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

Never pay the full GPL price.

Extreme Networks, HPE, Huawei.

This is still a reliable and useful product but other vendors are catching up.