Cisco Wireless Reviews

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. 

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 provide solutions to a university and Cisco Wireless is one of them. 

The solution offers central management, reliability, and signal, ensures the bandwidth, and segregates the network. It also maintains the authentication process in the compass solution, which is good regarding multiple software.

The solution should introduce natural language troubleshooting processes. It will identify possible problems or errors due to the symptoms.

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

The solution is good for expansion. We cater the solution to enterprise businesses.

I rate the solution’s scalability a seven out of ten.

Sometimes, the solution has lingering issues with the other dependencies.

Neutral

The initial setup is a bit complex. It depends on the project size and requirements. It takes almost a day, excluding the infrastructure part.

I rate the initial setup an eight out of ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy.

Cisco’s pricing is top ranking in the market and the competition out of 300 products. It is moderate. Cisco Wireless has a complex licensing model. While some features are offered without a license for integration and central management, others require licensing for activation. SmartNet support and other tools are also necessary, adding to the complexity. Segregating the costs into one-time payments for integration licenses and separate payments for SmartNet could reduce overall costs.

We recommend Cisco for enterprise customers because they are already invested in Cisco solutions. Once the setup is complete, they can utilize existing accessories. Additionally, Cisco provides fantastic support and robust product features, making it a reliable, high-performance solution for network needs.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

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.

We have a variety of segments in retail and hospitality, and each has different requirements. We are using this desk with IC for wireless, and we have high throughput access points depending upon the need and the number of footfalls. So we have designed for high throughput or traffic for video. We have a lot of video sessions — Teams meetings — so it definitely helps.

Cisco Wireless should have a single administration point, so we don't need to log into different controllers. It should be a single pin where we can centrally manage all the controllers in something like Prime. We are using Arista, so I would recommend a service that offers that kind of cloud setup for wireless.

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

I wouldn't say Cisco Wireless is scalable. I would definitely recommend a more cloud-based setup, like the UCS, which we have for a call manager. It should be on that the lines. So let's compare Cisco Wireless products to other networks that have a cloud-based solution where you can manage thousands of lacks of access points through a single interface. In Cisco Wireless control, we have to log in to each and every appliance, and the clients can support a maximum of 6,000 or 10,000 access points. So it isn't scalable. You have to install a different box. And from an administration point of view, it is a very tedious job to check on each and every control. We have around 30 or 40 controls in our network. 

Cisco technical support is pretty good. It is pretty much the same as other products.

Setting up Cisco Wireless is pretty straightforward. It takes about an hour or two, and we can handle it in-house. To deploy one project, it takes two to three for a single controller.

We have a yearly license.

I rate Cisco Wireless seven out of 10. I wouldn't recommend Cisco Wireless. I would advise others to look into a cloud-based setup like Arista. Cisco should improve on that part because it is tedious to manage different controllers

We use Cisco Wireless for networking in an education center.

The most valuable features of Cisco Wireless are security and the ability to manage everything easily. Other solutions, such as Aruba are differentiation.

If you use the EAP for wireless security it is good. The only setback is the user has to have their own login, it is easy to do. If you make a user group for many students because they do not know the password. Having everyone use a group user account is not good. It is best for every student to have their own login. The connectivity will be better.

Cisco Wireless does not have a dashboard that would make it easier for people to manage the solution, such as Cisco Meraki where you are able to monitor the network through the dashboard and everything is visible making it easier. There are many things you can do with the dashboards. With Cisco Wireless if you have to manage the switches, backbone, or update the controllers you have to have someone with Cisco certification or know someone who can support you with the management of the solution. I have colleagues that have difficulties when I am away making changes to the Cisco Wireless devices and this is one of the reasons we are switching this solution to Cisco Meraki.

I have been using Cisco Wireless for approximately 14 years.

The solution is stable. However, I had some issues last month with older Cisco wireless solutions. The certificates for some access points had expired and did not want to connect to the WLC.
Finally, I found a solution and got them all to work fine.

Why did I say it is stable. Since, we had installed it from 2009 until 2020 we had no major problem.
We started with a single SSID then with 2 SSIDs then we went up to 4 SSIDs. All 3 used authentication with a radius server. The fourth was managed by the WLC as Guest wifi.
This situation had to be foreseen because Cisco had announced on June 30, 2016 the dates of discontinuation and end of life of the range of our access points. The end date of routine failure analysis and new service provision had been declared on December 29, 2017.
It took 4 years later to face this certification problem.
Our network system of Cisco was really user-friendly:
-With printing with google cloud before it is stopped.
Our new MYQ system is too
- With our IP phone system
- With all practices (Windows, Mac, Tablets, phones and chromebooks)
- With our accounting system.
We really say Alhamdoulila.

The solution has good coverage and people can have access quickly.

We have approximately 700 students with Chromebooks connecting to the network.

I have not used technical support but if you want technical support it costs money.

I have used HPE and Apple wireless solutions previously.

The installation of the solution is easy but it might not be for others. I have used the solution for a long time.

Cisco Wireless solutions should have a price reduction for educations centers. Education centers are there to help people grow and there are not large budgets. The solution tends to be expensive and it can cause difficulties when purchasing them here in Africa.

I have evaluated other solutions, like Aruba through my nephew. This is the system he used at university in the US.

I would recommend this solution to anyone, Cisco is the best. We are migrating to Cisco Meraki next week.

I rate Cisco Wireless a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution in order to provide wireless clients access to our hospital network.

The BCO is a great basic feature.

We enjoy having access to the security features and MAC filtering. 

All the files are standard and supported, which is a good thing.

The initial setup is easy. It's fairly quick to deploy.

The product scales well and expands quite easily.

The interface could be better.

It's a hospital network; we have a lot of X-ray machines and other machines which may interrupt the WiFi signals. They need to provide more stability with respect to the interference or help us can analyze what is causing the interference issues from the controller side so that we could more effectively troubleshoot.

The pricing of the product is quite high.

I've heard the WiFi 6 is in the market and I would like to explore WiFi 6 features. 

Having a single SSID and adding a personal device or an organizational device that an SSID can automatically pick and connect to would be great.

I've been working with the solution for over ten years at this point. It's been a while now. 

While the product is stable, in some areas when the user sees a disconnection, we are not able to identify whether it's an access point issue or if it is due to some interference in that area of the hospital (due to hospital equipment). We need help detecting issues via the controller.

We have around 4,000 to 5,000 users on the solution. 

It is easy to scale as it is centralized. You just need to add more access points if you would like to expand the product.

Technical support is great. One time, we had a controller issue due to a hardware failure and they replaced it within two days. They are extremely helpful and responsive. We are satisfied with the level of support they provide. 

The initial setup is very simple. It's not overly complex or difficult. A company shouldn't have any trouble implementing it. 

Initially, we need to get the hardware and put the basic configurations of network settings in order. I don't think it will take more than one hour to do the basic configuration. More complexity, however, does take time. 

The solution doesn't require too much maintenance. Our access points are very old, however, they are pretty stable. For around 10 years, we have been running on the old hardware and it is time to renew, actually, as the product is almost end of support. However, so far, the maintenance has been quite minimal.

The first time we implemented the solution, we did request vendor support.

The product is quite expensive, and it's making us reconsider staying with Cisco. 

As this solution is near its end-of-life, my company is looking into other solutions such as Aruba or Huawei. We have not decided yet on what we will do, however, the Cisco pricing is very costly. We would like to check out other options that are cheaper, and which can offer the same kind of stability and features.

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

We aren't necessarily using the latest version of the solution. Some access points, for example, are so old we cannot upgrade them any longer. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users. If you have the money and budget, Cisco is a good, stable solution.

I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. 

We have deployed 5000 customer access points to provide product navigation and Wi-Fi connectivity.

Cisco Wireless enables end-to-end connectivity for endpoints. We can deploy wireless access points indoors and outdoors as well.

The product has valuable features for integration and authentication.

They should introduce zero interference capabilities.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for 14 years. At present, we use the latest version.

The product is stable. Cisco provides good support services in case of outages.

We have six medium and large businesses as customers for Cisco Wireless. We have integrated it with multiple solutions. I rate the scalability an eight out of ten.

Cisco provides quick and efficient support services. Whenever you call them, they immediately assign the engineers. This is the first time I have seen any other vendor responding this quickly. It is the part of the product.

Positive

The initial setup process takes two to four months. We collect the essential information for the network implementation document. Further, we deploy a few controllers and integrate the application. Later, we add endpoints to the existing network and create server IDs. We test the connection's speed efficiency and the signal's strength. This is how we complete the deployment process.

The platform is expensive for small-scale businesses. There are no extra costs included. We can add essential features to the on-premise version as required.

I rate the pricing an eight or nine out of ten.

They provide good support services for the tenure of the contract and software upgrade. I rate it an eight out of ten.