Cisco Wireless WAN Reviews

We needed a controller-based wireless solution for a medium-sized office environment that can support six to 10 APs. We have around 35 users in our office.

We have been using Cisco Wireless for four years.

Cisco Wireless is a stable product.

Cisco Wireless is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward, and you need to spend around six to 10 weeks to set up one controller. We have two managers and around six to 10 technical guys for maintenance.

We could deploy it without outside help because we have technical expertise.

We feel that Cisco is quite expensive, so we're looking for a reasonable alternative. We are considering Aruba and some other brands that are less expensive. Cisco works fine, but the issue is the annual licensing and support costs. 

I rate Cisco Wireless WAN eight out of 10. If budget weren't an issue, I would highly recommend Cisco.

Cisco Wireless WAN is mainly used in campus networks, hotels, and other enterprise customers to provide wireless internet connectivity.

Cisco Wireless WAN's best features are simple management, the cloud base, dashboards, and reliability.

Cisco Wireless WAN could be improved by introducing a low-power wireless access point that could be installed in an outside environment. I would also like them to add an option without any licensing controller so that the customer could just purchase access points, then plug and play. In the future, Cisco Wireless WAN should include cloud control, centralized management, and branch connectivity.

I've been using Cisco Wireless WAN for around ten years.

Cisco Wireless WAN is perfectly stable. Some of our customers have been using it for eight to ten years without having to change the hardware as it continues to work perfectly.

There are some limitations with scaling the on-premises version - if you want to scale, you need to change the hardware and purchase a new wireless controller at an additional cost.

Cisco's technical support is very responsive, fast, and knowledgeable, with experienced and knowledgeable engineers.

Positive

The initial setup is very easy because so many engineers know the product, and Cisco makes a lot of technical documentation available via its online portal. I would rate the setup process as five out of five.

Cisco's licensing model includes some mandatory licenses, making it more expensive than other vendors like HP, Aruba, and Ruckus.

I would rate Cisco Wireless WAN ten 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.

This product makes up part of our wireless network infrastructure.

The most valuable feature is the ease of configuration. Most of the questions one would have about setup are already identified in the troubleshooting guide.

The user interface is ok.

The prices are high and should be reduced in order to be more competitive.

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

In the five years that we have used it, we haven't had any problems. It has now reached end-of-life.

The scalability is very nice and we don't have any issues with it. We have about 500 users across the entire staff. They work in HR, admin, production, operations, and other roles.

The technical support is very nice and we have no issues with it.

We have traditionally used Cisco and are finally now changing because of the price.

The initial setup is okay. It takes about three months to implement.

Our in-house team handled the deployment. No maintenance is required any longer, although we have two IT people who are able to manage it.

With the increase in the price of this product, we will instead be replacing it with another vendor. It was a one-time fee and there are no costs in addition to this.

We are evaluating other solutions that are most cost-effective. Cisco is more expensive than either Aruba or SonicWall.

Whatever they have in this product is already the best in the market, and I recommend it for people who can afford it.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is for streaming access to the personal devices of students and staff for guest wifi and connection. So we provide corporate access to devices. They use it for media streaming, for social networking, for learning solutions. Most people don't connect through land cable anymore - they all go for wireless options.

I like that it has integrated the cost of our network access. We see identity controls solutions so we make sure it's all part of the same management console. We have the same console and the same authentication, and we use a multi-high profile defendable wireless system, access ports, and wireless access IDs. So each access ID has different kinds of people, different kinds of networks, the VLAN. Cisco controllers are now the best in this field. We end segregation on the Wi-Fi side based on the access ID.

The solution is very expensive, and I think the price should be more competitive, like with Aruba, Meraki, and other products. The price model is very high but the manageability is simple. 

We have some glitches from time to time, but the support is fast and they support us very well. This doesn't happen very often, though.

The technical scalability is easy, but the license scalability is quite tricky. It's licensing costs incurred, but technically the solution is very scalable. A total of 5,000 users are using the 3000 access points, and 2,600 users are using 800 access points. I am the architect and the rest of the users are basically university students, faculties, administration staff, and support staff who mainly use for media, social net access, corporate file access, academic system access, and learning solution access. And it used for radio-audio frequency wireless tools.

The support is good and I will rate them a seven out of ten.

As a typical Cisco solution there is a slight complexity to the setup, but because most of the engineers at Cisco are certified, it is easy for them. The integrators used a professional space on the vendor site for the deployment.

This is a very expensive solution but there are no additional costs.

We compared it to Aruba Wireless. Aruba has its own strength in the latest technology, their architects are very different, and they are more advanced. So I think Cisco is one step behind Aruba.

My advice to others is to understand the use case properly before deploying any solution. If you don't have a complex use case and if you can't afford it, don't get Cisco. But if you have a complex use case with a high frequency, high bandwidth of data usage in a wireless network, Cisco is the right product for you. The licensing strategy and the pricing could be improved, but it is a good solution. I rate it a seven out of 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.