Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

Security features

We can deploy a simple guest captive portal to allow guests to connect to the internet.

More languages on the captive portal.

I've been using Cisco WLAN Controller 2106 for about one year.

I had to reboot the controller a couple of times to force correct EAP key exchange.

I had to reboot the controller a couple of times to force correct EAP key exchange.

Since it's a very small controller, I was already prepared for a small deployment.

Not used at all.

Not used at all.

No previous solution used.

A bit complex. There's no logical order to setup what you need, but with some reading, it's totally feasible.

I implement it myself. I work for a Cisco partner.

Plan the network first and decide if this box is big enough for your deployment.

No configuration required on access points and better monitoring.

We have been deploying in different companies and their wireless communication has improved.

Access Points are unable to handle huge traffic and if one user start downloading other user bandwidth speed is affected.

Multiple Times.

4402, 4404, 5508

Yes we did have issues. The start access points were unable to join the controller but we managed.

There was an issue with User Authentication with lDAP.

None encountered.

None encountered.

It was good.

It was good.

Our customer used Linksys access points and they had problems with their connection so they decided for WLAN.

Start the controller. The initial setup process will start the you need to configure multiple parameters, and the configuration is done.

I implemented myself for multiple companies.

No day-to-day cost.

Yes different WLAN Controller models.

Good product and good reliability

We use the solution purely for a wide extension, in over it to achieve the desired coverage. It's a structure for our employees, and it offers end-to-end coverage for our employees to gain access to our corporate environment when they need to.

If you look at the Cisco products, it's sort of like buying a Mercedes-Benz, in that you know you get a brand that's well known and has a reputation of reliability. The ease of access and the simple rollout make it a natural choice. 

The ease of rollout is one of the main reasons we ended up choosing Cisco as a solution.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

The technical support is excellent.

The pricing is above average. They are a pretty expensive option. If clients don't have the budget, it can be hard to afford. The company should work to reduce the price and make them more competitive.

The solution would be better if there was some sort of server type of tool that's included in the package. If there was something that could help you fine-tune the solution a bit easier, it would be helpful.

I've been using the solution for eight or nine years at this point. It's been a while.

The technology of the product is excellent. The solution is very reliable and stable.

In our organization, there are roughly about 500 people using the Wireless. They vary from entry-level to senior management.

Cisco's technical support is very, very good. They are very knowledgeable and responsive. We're quite satisfied with the level of assistance they provide to us when we need it. It's quite professional.

We work as a service provider, and therefore we use a variety of products, including Cisco, Meraki, Ruckus, and Hadoop.

Although we've used other solutions, we've stuck with Cisco ourselves from the start.

The initial setup was not complex. It was straightforward and very simple. The setup and deployment are one of its selling points as it is quite easy.

The deployment is pretty quick. Of course, we have a certain level of comfort with the solution after so many years, so it is easy for us. We haven't encountered any issues with the process. Other organizations should also find it relatively easy.

The solution doesn't need a lot of staff for deployment and there is very little maintenance required. Those that we do have would be fairly technical as we would require some of our CNPs to do the support and maintenance on the system.

We don't need any consultants or implementors as we have sufficient in-house expertise. We can handle it ourselves.

I don't work with the commercial side, I don't have any estimate on the cost.

That said, I do know that it is more expensive than other options.

We are a service provider.

Cisco is a well-known brand especially when it comes to technology. They're one of the market leaders and they're absolutely a no-fuss vendor. I would recommend it to anyone.

It did take me a few weeks or months to get used to some aspects of the system, however, once you learn it, you get very comfortable with the processes of deployment.

I would rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's a superior option that's easy to implement and very reliable.

We have twenty switches in our corporate office.

The most valuable features are that it is easy to install and the range is good.

The price should be reduced. It should be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for five years.

We have upgraded to the newest version.

It's a stable product.

We have close to 600 users in our organization who are using this solutoin.

I do not have experience with technical support. We have not had to contact them.

Previously, we did not use another solution.

It's easy to install. 

It can take 15 to 20 minutes to complete the installation.

I completed the installation myself.

We have a team of three to maintain this product.

This is an expensive product.

We plan to continue our usage of this product and I would recommend it to others.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have been using Cisco wireless for more than five years.

This product has a long life and you don't have any issues with it.

We are very comfortable with the access points and Wi-Fi connectivity.

There needs to be an access point that is compact and more suitable for small and medium-sized businesses.

We need an access point that can be easily managed in a big industry. As it is now, in a large organization, we would require perhaps 20 or 30 access points. Instead of this, if we had a high-range access point that is also cost-effective then it would work well.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for five years. The model that we are using is now at end-of-life and we no longer have support from Cisco.

Stability-wise, this is a good solution and the majority of people in the industry prefer Cisco and Aruba devices.

This is a scalable product.

In general, Cisco's technical support is very good. They will replace hardware if needed. However, based on the locality, the support may need improvement. 

If you have knowledge of Cisco solutions then the initial setup is easy. However, if you don't have the knowledge then it's very difficult and you need to ask for support from a third-party.

The deployment will take a week.

Some of our customers use Cisco Wireless, whereas others use Aruba. It is normally an issue of the quality of the local support team. People prefer the support of one vendor over another, which differs depending on the locale.

If anybody asks me, I would recommend a Cisco device. When you consider all of the LAN and wireless features, everything is good. Cisco is now customizing products based on customer requirements, and they are also cost-effective.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The easy way to integrate it with the existing network. Also, at the implementation, the simple management of the access points in a centrally console.

Before the implementation in 2006, we had 20 stand-alone access points where the administration tasks were complicated; any change has to be made in each AP.

Since August 2006.

Not really.

Until now they are very stable, but in some cases in which we had a problem there was a fix to solve the problem.

No issues encountered.

Good, 9 out of 10

Good, 9 out of 10

No, this product is the only one I have used.

As in the majority of new implementations there is a lack of knowledge of the products, but with some time and a lot readings at the end was easily.

It was a mixed schema; the case study and the initial implementation was made by a vendor, then, the tune up was made by us.

No, it was the only one because all the network infrastructure is Cisco: Total compatibility.

Have clear ideas about the requirements or goals for the company before implementation and have a good case study.

Cisco Wireless gave us the ability to deploy and seamlessly manage wireless devices at our corporate office and remote locations.

It gave us the ability to view wireless traffic, unwanted devices on the network, and how they affected overall network performance.

• The ability to deploy wireless access points with templates.
• The ability to use campus maps to see access point coverage.

Most definitely the cost. 

I am not a fan of Cisco's software pricing model. Their management software is far too expensive.