Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We use Cisco Wireless WAN to provide wireless WAN for our company.

I like that it's a very stable solution.

The price could be better.

I have been using Cisco Wireless WAN for more than four years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is very stable.

I think we used the smallest controller hardware solution, which was more than enough for us. But it's not scalable. It's okay because we don't have more access points.

The initial setup is straightforward. The initial deployment takes me about a day. We have to first set up the controller because it's a controller-based solution and then add access points from them. This will be determined automatically. The configuration is based on the controller and will be pushed to the access points automatically after they have been recognized.

I implemented this solution. 

The price could be better, but it's been okay. You must pay license fees for each access point connected to the controller.

I prefer the solution offered by Fortinet better.

I would tell potential users that it's a good solution if they plan to use more Cisco products. This is because it can be integrated into the entire network design.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Cisco Wireless WAN an eight.

I primarily use Cisco Wireless WAN for meetings and to let mobile devices connect to WiFi.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best feature is the integration with other Cisco products.

Cisco Wireless WAN would be improved with the ability to monitor new usernames, product registrations, and flow traffic.

I've been working with Cisco Wireless WAN for roughly two years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is scalable.

Cisco Wireless WAN is fairly expensive.

I would give Cisco Wireless WAN a rating of six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for wireless connectivity for corporate. 

The solution has improved the customer experience, which has helped improve the organization. Customers can access the corporate network with ease and get the resources they need even if they are moving around the office. They easily connect to the WiFi without issue.

The SSID feature is quite good. 

It runs well, without issue.

Users can easily move around the office and stay connected. 

The solution is stable. It offers good performance. 

We can scale the product.

Cisco has a very good reputation and offers pretty good pricing. 

We would like to see additional data and security. We'd like to see them maintain integration between SD-WAN and Cisco ISE and for them to improve the security factor for the customer.

It can be complex to set up. 

They need to build a more comprehensive solution around the WLAN controller. 

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

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

It's easily scalable. That's not a problem at all. 

Technical support is okay. They can solve issues, however, the response time can be long. 

Neutral

The initial setup is complex. You need to have a high skill set when dealing with Cisco. It's not meant to be done by non-technical users. 

The product does not require a lot of maintenance. It's very minimal.

While I can't remember the exact pricing, it's not overly expensive. 

We are a partner with Cisco for networking and security.

I'm working with the latest version of the solution. 

Cisco maintains a good relationship with its customers. They have a very good reputation on the market.

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

The most valuable features are user and handling capacity, indoor and outdoor access points and antennas, and the inbuilt intrusion prevention system.

The DNA space is a separate license cost, which should be included in the license.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for three years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is quite stable.

This solution is scalable, but it's expensive to add licenses.

I'm satisfied with Cisco's technical support.

The ease of the setup depends on the size and design of the network. If a lot of connection points are required, then the wider controller will be needed, and branches will be connected with VPN, which makes it more complicated. 

Cisco's pricing is quite costly and should be cheaper for both licensing and hardware. A license for one access point costs around $500 for three years. There are also separate charges for smart networking and support.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN as nine out of ten.

Let's say you are in Mauritius right now and that you have a company here. You have set up Cisco Wireless WAN in the company, and you are using your laptop and are connected to the Wi-Fi. For instance, if you go abroad to another branch of the same company and you use your laptop there, your device will still be connected to the Wi-Fi in your office in Mauritius. You don't need to type in the password again.

It's very secure.

I also like that now you can add a cellular connection to the Cisco router. So, if your operator is down, you can now still have one connection in the office with the cellular module.

The interface is a little bit difficult to understand at times. It would be good if Cisco were to make it user friendly so that everyone can easily configure it without the need to do certifications and courses to learn how to use all of the devices.

Cisco Wireless WAN is a stable solution.

It is easy to deploy.

It's a good solution, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

The most valuable features for me are the ease of operation and scalability.

The cloud interoperability needs improvement.

This solution is scalable.

We have twenty thousand users.

The technical support for this solution is good, and the general Cisco tech support is also good.

They are able to help me with any problems.

The initial setup is simple

It took one week to deploy this solution and it takes two people to maintain this solution.

Our clients are large enterprise companies.

This solution is the best on the market. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The primary use case for this solution is supplying Wi-Fi to public users.

We have been using this solution for 3D uploading and providing resources for users. Our goal is to offload traffic from mobile devices while people are at work.

We have been installing this solution in malls, the university, and other buildings. We have deployed this solution across the whole country.

This is the most stable product in the market.

The documentation is very good and it's available everywhere. If you use Google to search then you will get it all.

The integration is easy.

The reporting feature needs improvement, especially adding information with regards to availability uptime. Currently, we have to calculate this on our own by using a performance tool and then customize the reports to display it. This information is a major concern for us because we need to know how much uptime is available to our customers.

This is a stable solution and we have not had any problems. We have not found any bugs.

The only problem that we have had is related to power failures, which has nothing to do with the product.

We have deployed this solution across the country, and anyone who is in the kingdom can use Wi-Fi for free for two hours. We have thousands of users.

We will be deploying more Cisco products because the integration is easy, and our core is already made up of Cisco.

We are satisfied with the technical support from Cisco.

They are not only taking care of the Wi-Fi. Cisco has also deployed the IP MPLS network.

Whenever we have a problem and we explain it to them, they try their best to solve it.

Previously, we were using the Cisco 5500 series and the 8500 series.

The initial setup of this solution is not complex because there is lots of documentation available and it is very good. Instead of being complex, it becomes easy for you.

We are also using a solution by Aruba. Some of the features are better with Cisco, whereas different features are better in Aruba.

We also evaluated Nokia and we found it more difficult to integrate.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I'm a user, administrator, and implementer of Wireless WAN. I work in a large company and we use the system throughout our campus sites. We mainly use version 5508 and for smaller sites, we use 2504. There are more recent products but I don't have experience with them. We currently have 50,000 people using the Cisco Wireless WAN and have no plans for further expansion.

Improvement to our organization would be in terms of IoT, I would say, because some buildings are fully covered by WiFi. We're talking about large buildings of 60 access points per building. Users have benefited from full coverage and of course, that includes cell phones which also connect to WiFi, and using the guest wireless, and the ICP. Reduction in mobile data costs has allowed for increased savings, thanks to our corporate WiFi.

Valuable features for me would be the friendly GUI. It's not a feature as such but it's the first thing I would point out because troubleshooting is very easy on it. I can literally point down to a single host, find roughly where he's located and examine the strength of his connectivity. Also, I find the mobile anchoring to be handy although compared to the newer solutions it's a little old. 

Improvement could be made in the planning - WiFi survey and planning, and WiFi key mapping - should both be included in high-end devices. You would expect them to be included in such a product. When we bought it, 5508 was a high-end device. Some aspects could be achieved automatically by the wireless controller. For example, if there is a single access point deployed in a densely populated area, there will be many users and all those users bring down the speed. I think an option where the range of the access points is determined by the signal strength of the end-users would be good. There should be a mechanism mitigating that because when a user with a low WiFi signal connects, he basically crashes the experience for everyone else. Some automation on their part would be good.

A neat feature that some of the other vendors have is that of informing, where I can tell the access point to narrow down its signal and focus it in a specific direction. That is very handy, for example, in long corridors where you don't want the access point to spread its signal everywhere but rather focus it to a narrow field of vision, so to speak. That's a feature I would like to see. Vendors like Aruba have things like tracking mobile devices. That would also be a handy feature because it allows you to pinpoint areas that have low WiFi coverage. Another feature would be a dynamically generated heat map. Let's say you can see on a heat map where the user has been and can follow his WiFi experience in terms of signal to noise ratio, signal strength and the like as well as interference by other machines detected in that path, how the access points see each other and the strength of signal they're producing. The only thing missing is the piece of software that could show you that graphically.

I would like to see a centralized management where I don't need to log on to every controller and then proceed from there. Also, a centralized management for multiple wireless control deployments and, of course, features such as user tracking so I can pinpoint the user, all the way down to the wireless control access point and switch that the access point is connected to. 

It's a very stable device when used properly by people who know how to configure it; a high-end quality device. Recently some of the access points have started to break down but they are over 10 years old, which is quite good.

The product is very good quality with high scalability in my view.

We currently have around 10 people in our maintenance team

Prior to Cisco, we used Palo Alto. The switch was made to Cisco because we wanted to standardize the network throughout the company. 

The setup is relatively straightforward. To configure the controllers with prep time and IP address, would take a couple of hours, give or take.

I wasn't involved in the decision-making process about alternative options before we went with the Wireless WAN.

We use dedicated wireless control for our campuses in a redundant topology, active/passive. We use both Flex connect and local, essentially switched networks. Our company uses physical machines, not cloud-based wireless controls.

I would rate it a seven out of ten.