Cisco Wireless Reviews

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.

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. 

Primary use is for connecting staff and students' laptops, iPads, and Chromebooks.

Most of wireless controllers' features are similar, but what sets WLC, the Cisco wireless controller, apart is that it has an end-to-end solution, meaning that it's running off of Cisco switches, and a Cisco router. So all the platform, from routing to switching, is Cisco. Therefore, having a wireless controller, we can actually manage the quality of service seamlessly.

If we had chosen another product then it may not understand, or we may have to make it jump through hoops, to make it more seamless. Since across the platform, Cisco has an end-to-end solution, that sets it apart from the other vendors.

As far as the technology, pretty much everybody offers almost the same thing. It's just that they name it differently. Other than that they're the same. So the above is the reason we went with the Cisco. 

Also, because I'm Cisco Certified as far routing, switching, etc., I understand their technology. So on top of it, that also helps. I don't have to actually reinvent the wheel to make it work. So it's a  cost savings for the company, because they already hired somebody who understands Cisco products. It's a combination of those things, so we chose the Cisco wireless controller.

This product has a Clean Air Solution, which means it can detect non-WiFi signals. It not only signals but it can also detect that what type of device it is coming from. And if it needs to change the channel in order to avoid that unwanted signal, it can do so and that way the client machine will have better performance.

Also, we have also a test environment. Cisco offers a smaller version, between 25 and 50 access point controllers. It's $2000, very inexpensive. I have it in my test environment so I can do tests before I actually implement in production. That helps.

If needs to provide more visibility. It can detect and do it, but as technicians we don't have a lot of visibility into seeing exactly what's happening. It doesn't give us a lot of log information for us to troubleshoot. They probably have additional software you need to purchase to get that kind of information. But I think not all companies can afford additional software to see those kinds of details. So if the wireless controller already had, built-in, those types of things for the technician or wireless engineer, it would be more attractive for the end-user to use WLC, more than any other product.

It's very, very stable. We have hardly ever had any problems with it as far rebooting itself, or it couldn't handle the load it had, given how we initially we sized it. It hasn't caused any problems.

We've had no issues with scalability. We initially started with two controllers; as far as a failover we used technology called N+1. But N+1 did not suit our environment because we have about 750 access points throughout the campus. E1 access point can only hold 500. If that ever happened, it would mean another 250 would be hanging out there. So we changed that to 1:1. We now have four controllers. Now we're able to handle up to 1,000 access points. So scalability wasn't a problem. And, if we have to have more we could still do it. So scalability is very seamless.

I would give an A+ to tech support. It depends what kind of issue you have, they have different categories. They can remote in to view our screen and see what the problem is and can give us a recommendation and then we change it, if we think it's necessary. If it would be helpful for us then we do it, during off hours.

I have always used Cisco. I have friends and colleagues who have used Aruba and other things. As I mentioned earlier, they're very similar as far the access points go. They have a similar technology, Clean Air, etc., they have it. 

The only problem is, as I mentioned, they are not using Aruba switches or routers, etc. So when an issue arises they have to finger-point to a different vendor. So I try to avoid that kind of different vendor finger-pointing. If I can have the same vendor solution and it's stable and works well, why not use them that way. If there's any problem, it is one vendor, there is no finger-pointing.

it's not really complex. If you're familiar with the technology you should be able to follow through with any of the wireless controllers or Cisco's. They're very intuitive. If you know the terminology you just have to follow through.

As far as I know Cisco is very competitive, price-wise.

Talk to your third-party vendor. It all depends on the company size - how many employees, how big the building is. If it's wireless, and you have only 50 employees but you're using a large building floor, in that case you need many access points. But if you have 50 employees using two or three rooms, then you probably don't need it and it's going to be high density, so there is a different design. So you need to talk to a subject matter expert. Talk to them and design accordingly.

When I joined this company they already had a modular for 6509 switches. So from there I migrated to a 5508 Controller. So at the time it was much easier, since the company was already are using a Cisco wireless controller. It would have been much easier for migration to the 5508. 

We did talk to Aruba about their solution and, I think, price-wise it was very similar and that's the reason we stayed with Cisco.

I rate this Cisco solution an eight out of 10. To bring it up to a 10, as I mentioned earlier, you have to get a Cisco Prime in order to view  signal strength and what's going on, which is an additional cost. You have to buy another product to manage WLC, so why not have Cisco Prime built into WLC so there is one product? That way you wouldn't need to have to buy additional software or licenses to manage WLC. It's basically: WLC manages access points, Prime manages WLC. So why not all under one umbrella, that way you don't have to jump through multiple pages to look and troubleshoot. If all is in one place it would be much easier.

If it's the first time you're implementing it, there is a different way of doing it. Now, I think, Cisco offers a different type of a wireless controller. It can be cloud-based, it can be on a switch module, or it can be just an appliance. So it's based on what your environment looks like and what kind of failover you want. Based on your needs, that's how you have to design. 

Also, look into other products and evaluate them yourself. Have a demo on your site for Aruba or Cisco and see, regarding the high density, how many clients are connecting to one access point and where the breakpoint is, those kinds of things. Evaluate yourself and go with whatever makes sense for your company.

We use it to provide wireless access to our students, faculty, and non-teaching staff because we are a university, an educational institution. I am one of the non-teaching staff who takes care of the networking side.

The feature that I have found most valuable is its durability because we can rely on this solution. It is also easy to configure. Lastly, if something happens, we get good support from Cisco.

One thing which we really don't like about Cisco is that it is very expensive. If we compare it to other brands like Ruckus or Aruba, it seems to be almost double in price. So that is a major concern. Recently, I have been looking for something comparable to Cisco which is a lower price.

Cost is a major area because if you look at the technical features with other solutions, they seem to be the same in every feature, with no big differences. For example, if you support a 1.5k ACL with two parallel lines, others are supporting 2,000. It's not a major difference, but it is there. I think you can show that it as at par with the competitors.

I would say that the product is best-in-class. The only thing is the price because whether you're a government institution or a private organization, everyone looks for the best price. If we just compare to the competitors on the financial side and we have to pay twice, then it's very difficult for us to go for something even if we know it is very good. So the price should be much less.

Another improvement Cisco Wireless could make is if they provided a calculation document or study on requirements for wall thickness, signal range, switch location, etc.

Additionally, I think it is already very advanced and potentially supports 5G. That is perfectly fine, but it would be good if they could increase their signal strength, because sometimes we face difficulty getting signals, even from a wifi access point in the next room. This goes hand-in-hand with the document I mentioned calculating the range area of the product, etc. There are international standards and/or limitations on that. 

I personally have been using Cisco for a only few years, since I was hired, but my institution has been using it for around seven or eight years.

The stability is good. 

For wireless, I would say it is good. But when we were using the Cisco firewall we found some difficulties setting up and our internet was breaking up or something like that. But from a wireless point of view, it is fine.

Also, one point which just came to my mind about Cisco is if we could have some kind of calculation for the access points because then maybe we could make a web off of all of them. "How much of that access point is required. This access point is covering this much area." If we can have that kind of information it would be easier for us to calculate the capacity. 

It is scalable. We are currently looking at the scalability so that we can provide the infrastructure to some other blocks, as well. I haven't tried it yet or discovered what problems I'm going to face, but I think that it should be able to scale. I think we will be able to do that, but I'm not sure right now.

During peak time, there are around 5,000 or 6,000 users. Now, in COVID-19-like situations, there are maybe a hundred or 200.

We don't have any plans to just switch to another product because we don't have that flexibility. We will just go for open tendering. We will make some generic technical aspects of the product and throw it in the market. Everyone will be invited. We can't just ask for Cisco only. That's why I was worried about their price because if they are the most expensive we will not pay them if they qualify.

The initial setup is not that difficult, it is just technical. For example, if I am looking to set up Cisco, then I should have the skills required to install it. So I would say that the setup is fine. It does not need to be changed. In fact, the product which we have has a controller on our premise that Cisco is now offering to our controllers for switches. So I think this concern is handled over there because controlling through the cloud is a little easier than this centralized controller product, particularly for an institution or organization.

I would say that it's a good solution. Everything is there and I have nothing to point out. 

I would definitely recommend this product, but at the same time, I would say that they should bring their price down. 

Like every solution, it has pros and cons. It's just part of the process.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Cisco Wireless a nine. From the product side, I would rate it nine, but if you ask me about the return on investment, I would probably say a six or seven because the investment is huge here.

I am using the wireless solution as access points for offices and for Wi-Fi. I am actually a system integrator, implementing and doing solutions for clients.

The product is reliable. When I install it, I can forget about it because there is no need for ongoing maintenance, and no other problems occur. It does not require maintenance.

From my side, there is no immediate need for improvement. However, in the long term, there could be a cost reduction because it does not require much maintenance.

I have used the solution for around eleven months.

I would rate the stability nine out of ten.

I would rate the customer service nine out of ten.

Positive

I have a technical team for installations.

We have around eight to ten people. We mainly have technicians for installations.

The setup cost involves licenses. Sometimes it requires three to five years, and it depends on the subscription. I sometimes face issues with clients regarding this.

I am working with Huawei and Cisco.

The reliability is notable. The product is beneficial except for the fact that it's a long-term installation. It will reduce the cost of maintenance. It depends on the scenario and what they are using. If it is a critical application or not, I would evaluate before recommendation. If it is critical and requires stability, a good product they are using, like in critical sectors, for example, governance sometimes, I recommend Cisco. But in small places like offices, a cheaper solution might be suitable. I can go for other brands. Overall product rating: Eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company to cover complex spaces. The tool can be useful to connect some devices to the ethernet.

For end users, the tool must be easy to connect and use. Technical stability is important for my company, and I haven't seen any problems with the product.

The most valuable feature of the solution stems from the fact that it can be integrated into other solutions in a particular environment, including where there are wired and wireless connections.

The coverage provided by the solution is an area of concern in some cases, making it an area where improvements are required.

From an improvement perspective, the product could be made cheaper.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for a few years. I don't remember the version of the solution.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution.

A few hundred people use the product in my company.

My company will probably increase the number of users for the tool.

Apart from Cisco Wireless, I have used some other solutions in my company only for testing purposes.

There are no major problems in the area of the product's initial setup phase.

The solution is deployed on the cloud.

The solution can be deployed in a week.

Around ten people in my company take care of the product's deployment and maintenance.

The product's deployment phase was done with the help of my company's in-house personnel.

The product is expensive.

My company has no problems with the performance offered by the product.

Cisco offers the best solutions in the market.

To those who plan to use the solution in the future, I would say that it is a tool that needs to be completely integrated into an infrastructure.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.

The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions.

In my last organization, which was a university, we used it for seven years. But in this current organization, we are not using it yet.

It is a stable solution. The performance was good. However, most of the issues were due to changes in Cisco versions. 

There were more than 25,000 students who were using it. It was a good experience for us because Cisco supported us in our workflow. We were facing many problems before Cisco, but after implementing it, we had great functionality. And since then, we haven't changed a single AP.

It was better than other APs in terms of wireless equipment and performance.

It is a straightforward solution. That's why we just required some technical support from a third party. At that time, when we were at the finishing side or during the landing time.

If I make a comparison with Huawei 6.0 with Cisco, Huawei is better. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

Our in-house team deployed the solution. 

It was expensive. Considering the challenges faced in third-world countries like Pakistan or India, cheaper solutions are preferred. Huawei, for example, is much cheaper compared to Cisco.

We use an annual license model. 

I recommend using Cisco.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

Everything I do is generally command line and I use the gooey of the device. I also use a Cisco network assistant to manage the devices. I have a third-party monitor that checks to make sure everything's online — that's it. I don't have any kind of integrated solution where everything is captured within one piece of software.

I prioritize what buildings I can try to upgrade the access points from. I am looking to update my controllers because my controllers are older. They still function fine; I haven't needed to change them yet. I know eventually, they become end-of-life — that's when I'll have to switch them out.

I use Cisco wireless controllers, 2500s. I know they're pretty much going to be end-of-life soon, but I've been using them. They've been solid, I've had them for numerous years. That's what I use to manage those devices. My switches are pretty much a 3650s layer-three and they provide POE over POE plus over 40 access points to be online. It's a big network, but I keep everything in a very basic way. It's easily managed; it's just a very small department.

We're a school district, so every kid has a device. Every teacher has a device and everything is wireless. On a full school day, we can have up to 1,500 devices online at the same time. I try to make sure that everything is connected and that we have enough bandwidth. And if there's an issue that ever comes up, I always try to go there and evaluate it and correct it when needed. With the Cisco product that I've had, I've never had a lot of downtime. So I've been pretty happy with what they provide.

I want to purchase more because I want to update. Wireless standards are changing. You've got to go to WiFi 6, which is 802.11ax. That's in a few years. I don't need to do that yet because our devices won't accommodate that. Everything's still back on 802.11.ac. So there's no point, but in the future, maybe two, three years down the line, when we start getting new devices that accommodate WiFi 6, and I'm going to look for access points to be able to accommodate it as well.

The CleanAir features and the fast transition. They're probably the best things that I enjoy as well as just being able to put multiple SSIDs on those things and being able to segment my network that way. As for authentication, I use a RADIUS server, a third-party RADIUS server, for authentication on the wireless SSIDs.

I have nothing that's outstanding at this point that I think needs to be improved. Cisco has been solid so I don't have much to complain about. It's a little more money, however. I just configure it and it works for years, which is great. That's what I love about it.

I know Cisco has a Meraki brand, which uses a lot of cloud-based technology. I wouldn't mind if Cisco allowed their premiere devices to be able to have that cloud-based support as well, or cloud-based management. That would be a nice feature.

I've been using this solution for over 15 years. 

The stability is fantastic. I can't complain. Not one bit.

Scalability is nice. 

We have SMARTnet contracts with Cisco. On occasion, I've actually called them for technical support, but most of the stuff I just kind of figured out on my own.

The technical support is great. They were very accommodating and if they didn't have the answer, they would get back to me or send me an email with some information that I can refer to. But I've never been left in a lurch where I was waiting an excessively long amount of time. They've always been quick to respond and they've been very courteous as well.

For me, the initial setup is straightforward because I have everything in place. Each VLAN has a wireless controller. When I put Cisco's access point on, dynamically, it basically finds the controller, joins it, and then after joining it, I'll just log in and I'll make any configuration changes that I need to accommodate the area that it's working in.

For me, deployment takes a few days; I've been doing this long enough. If I ever have an issue, I always look it up. 

I pretty much deployed it myself. I try to keep it simple, I don't make things complex. It makes it easier for me to manage it. A couple of times in the past we've had some outside help. A lot of that just had to do with the installation of something because it comes down to timing. Being a very small department, I don't always have the time to be able to put this stuff together. So sometimes it's just helpful to get someone outside to help us out.

It's expensive because a lot of the controls come with licenses. A couple of my controls have 15 or 25 access point licenses. And if it's in a building that I need more, then I have to go out to a vendor and be able to purchase the add-on license and then pop it in. It's not bad putting a license in, it's just the biggest complaint I have about Cisco is the cost.

Right now there's no subscription. That's the other thing I like about it. We buy it and that's it. The only thing I purchase is the SMARTnet that allows me to do software upgrades for my equipment. I'm paying about $6,000 or $7,000 a year in SMARTnet contracts for that support. Basically, I use it more for the software updates that allow me to keep everything up to date.

Like anything in life, if you're familiar with it, it's easy. Can it get complicated? Of course. But I would just say, just do your research. And make sure you count the cost too. There are two things that are in play here; do your research. Once you get on a comfort level, then you can proceed with it. It works. It's pretty solid. And then the cost. Make sure that if you've got to expand that you have the financial flexibility to be able to accommodate any expansion you need, if not, then you may want to turn to another solution that might be a little cheaper.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of nine.