VMware NSX Reviews

This is a product for network security, and network management. 

We don't use it at the production level. I am conducting a PoC.

We are using this in our testing data center and not in our live data center. This infrastructure contains many security devices from other vendors such as Palo Alto.

We are also using vSAN and vCenter.

The most valuable features are stability and low cost.

There are always issues integrating with Cisco.

Switching is always a big problem for us because our switch is not supported.

If the integration was more open, then it would be good.

I have been using VMware NSX for three years.

We are using the latest version, and we already want to upgrade it.

It's a stable solution. We plan to continue using it.

There are three users in our organization who are using this solution.

VMware technical support is good but we find that the Cisco support is better for us.

This product is better for network security than Cisco ASA and Firepower.

The initial setup is straightforward but still takes time.

It takes longer to deploy than Cisco products. It takes between three and seven days to deploy,

We had a team of five for deployment. Two are from our company and three were from the vendor.

We have a license.

It is an expensive product, but cheaper than some competing solutions.

It's a good product.

This is a solution that I recommend.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment (primary/secondary).

It contained compute and management clusters, and a small number of transport ESXi nodes (between five and six) v6.7u2, vCenter 6.7u2, AD.

The primary use case was to implement micro-segmentation and route production workloads through NSX-T via BGP. Our customer needed assurances that BGP routing within NSX-T would be efficient.

We implemented a very simple architecture and setup site with one NSX Manager as the primary source. This was a financial customer, thus security was the main item.

We had to explain to the customer that NSX-T deployment and micro-segmentation were two different projects explicitly.

NSX-T has allowed us to implement micro-segmentation in the customer's environment seamlessly (zero-trust). We have also looked at deploying Tufin or Gardicore, ReSTNSX as alternative tools. The Environment was an active-active Tier-0 multi-site deployment

The organization was able to begin scaling out its production workloads and clusters.

From a security standpoint, the customer was able to better secure critical workloads while routing L2/L3 worked normally, giving them more confidence that they would be ready for any potential security incident mitigation or outage (DR).

The most valuable features are:

• N-VDS Geneve encapsulation L2/L3
• Less need for the VM to hit the TOR switch to communicate with VMs on the same ESXi host/segment (logical switch)
• Micro-segmentation capabilities/tagging
• NSX-T dashboard/compute usage across the configuration allows a quick view
• The NSX-T configuration screens are fairly easy to navigate but they might need to simplify them a bit in future versions.
• Very extensive detailed configuration items can be set in Uplink profiles to better map pNICs
• Edge TEP and Host TEP tunnel config and troubleshooting is much more understandable and verifiable

Traffic flow introspection topology visibility is definitely needed because at the moment, NSX-T lacks in this area.

A hardware scan of the ESXi host for possible incompatibilities should be added to NSX-T/vSphere, as it would allow us to know in advance, for example, if a pNIC is not compatible with a version of vSphere before moving forward with an NSX-T deployment. 

It needs a better, integrated migration tool. Something like RestNSX with more elaborate capabilities from a troubleshooting perspective and pre-migration perspective would be an improvement.

I have used this solution version most recently, as it has not been out that long.

Many companies are moving to v3 and v3.01

N-VDS will be depreciated in newer versions and integrated within the standard VDS

From a recoverability standpoint, if designed correctly and perhaps if VMware SRM is integrated with NSX-T, it would help the stability of workload availability.

From a routing perspective, NSX-T must be designed for redundancy with cross/overlapping uplinks from the edge nodes to your L3 upstream devices. Routing will be more reliable with default routes in place. Hardware compute and compatibility with the solution is critical for good communication via the  nsx overlay network.  Overall this solution is very scalable

NSX-T is extremely scalable as a solution. Make sure that you plan your IP pools accordingly in advance if you plan to add many transport ESXi nodes in the future.

VMware Global support for NSX-T/V is exceptional.

We have never used any other solution. NSX is the premier product in this space.

The initial setup will go smoothly if the design of the solution was done correctly. 

NSX-T can be complex if the discovery phase was not granular enough.

We implemented it with an in-house team.

Customers will better be able to determine ROI once they have been running the solution for a year or so. How much they will have from the Capex perspective will have to be calculated.

My advice is to make sure that you properly scope the project from both hardware and network requirements. NSX-T can be complicated if it is not designed correctly.

Some customers are evaluating Gardicore vs NSX.

Gardicore is a great tool for micro-segmentation only. It can fill in many gaps that NSX-T misses with its native micro-seg capabilities.

An NSX-T solution requires a solid understanding of routing/switching, IP pools, local egress, and solution design to be successful. It takes a team of both VMware and Cisco folks to collaborate to get it done right the first time.

As a customer, make sure you are hiring the best resources.

The tool is very useful for cloud providers who need to manage things like Microsoft Enterprise.

The performance is good.

The setup is complex and should be made easier.

I have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. Good to scale in and scale out, and add benefits resources. Customers use it across the globe.

The technical support team is dependable because we use the service a lot of time. We opened a lot of cases and it was solved.

The tool's setup is complex. When I deployed it myself, it took less than one day.

We can do many things with NSF; for now, most of the things are the micro security capabilities and features. I recommend the solution. I rate it eight out of ten.

We use the solution for the software-defined network. 

I am impressed with the tool's protection. 

The tool's setup is complex and we need support to implement it. 

I am working with the product for two months. 

The solution is stable. 

My company has three users for the tool. We plan to increase the usage of the solution in future. 

The solution is difficult to deploy due to network complexity. The deployment took three months to complete. We had around five to seven resources involved in the product's deployment. They were mainly from the roles of network security and infrastructure. We created a plan and deployed the solution following it. 

Our partner helped us with the solution's implementation. 

The tool's pricing is reasonable. 

We compared the solutions from Cisco and Nutanix. We chose VMware NSX due to its price. 

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We are using VMware NSX primarily to enable address mechanisms in terms of having to provide the workloads publicly.

In India and similar regions, the CSP faces a significant challenge. The primary issue is related to network address cancellation, which requires private to public IT mapping and the use of the CSP's own IP address space. VMware NSX has been effective in addressing this problem, along with the virtual firewall's ability to function as a network firewall. This has helped to minimize the need for customers to take responsibility for their network security. In these regions, customers expect full-service solutions and do not typically embrace DIY approaches. An analogy for this situation is that if a customer buys a toothbrush from you, they might expect you to brush their teeth for them.

VMware NSX's overlay network is its most valuable feature, as it aligns with any network philosophy and allows for efficient addressing mechanisms. Additionally, the ability to extend the on-premise network into the provider space is beneficial. There are many features provided.

There is room for improvement in VMware NSX's workload management, particularly in the orchestration layer and in managing workloads across multiple clouds.

Additionally, where workload management could be improved is in the ability to federate workloads seamlessly between different control panels. For example, if I am using VMware vCenter as my control panel and have partnered with a non-VMware provider, I should be able to manage my workloads as a customer without having to worry about orchestration. This is an area where there is potential for improvement.

I have been using VMware NSX for approximately eight years.

The scalability of VMware NSX is similar to other solutions. It is scalable.

I rate the scalability of VMware NSX a seven out of ten.

We did not have local support to go to in India. There is no support center here.

I have used Qumulo but we needed to buy a switch for it which was not favorable.

The initial setup of VMware NSX is not complex. If someone has an understanding of how networks work it will be easy. It can take some time to be completed. For example, to configure the solution with the correct commands.

The implementation time can vary depending on the clarity and complexity of the requirements.

When comparing VMware NSX to OpenStack, VMware NSX is simpler to implement.

I rate the initial setup of VMware NSX a six out of ten.

The price of VMware NSX is optimal. Additionally, the price of the solution can be negotiated with the vendor. Many areas of the solution can impact the cost, such as features, time for onboarding, and support needed.

We evaluated other options before choosing VMware NSX.

VMware is a pioneer in virtualization, they are good at what they do. They score high overall in capability.

I rate VMware NSX an eight out of ten.

We use NSX in our data center. 

We use the NSX firewall which is great. 

I'd like to see more integration with other solutions. 

We've been using this solution for over two years. 

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

I haven't used technical support. 

I recommend this solution and rate it seven out of 10. 

I primarily use NSX for micro-segmentation, security, and load-balancing.

NSX's stability could be improved.

I've been working with NSX for six years.

I would rate NSX's stability eight out of ten - there's room for improvement.

I would rate NSX's scalability eight out of ten.

The initial setup is easy and takes between one and five days.

I would give NSX a rating of seven out of ten.

We are using VMware NSX for network security.

It is used for Tanzu, it is successful for our Kubernetes environment.

The most valuable features are ease of use and user interface.

The security feature for the Kubernetes environment can be improved.

I have been using this solution for approximately one year.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. 

We have approximately 10 users using this solution in my organization.

We have been satisfied with the technical support. They were able to solve our problems. However, they could be faster.

Positive

The installation is straightforward and it took approximately two days.

We did the implementation ourselves. We have a manager and an administrator that does the maintenance of the solution.

There is a license required for this solution and there is also a support license available. 

The price of the solution could be better.

I would recommend it to others.

I rate VMware NSX ten out of ten.

We use VMware NSX for box integration. If box integration is still a code, we use this technology to understand it.

When we have problems in the Kubernetes cluster inside the XDN or problems in the Container Network Interface (a container integrated with the NSX), we can join the Kubernetes cluster data source. If there is a problem in CNI, we can see the connection with the NSX manager and create alerts.

The alert features are the most valuable.

The integration with other brands is not the best and could be better.

We have been using this solution for almost two years. We are using version 3.1.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable, and we have 20 users using this solution.

I rate the technical support a ten out of ten. Their support is excellent.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have had a very good return on investment.

I rate this solution a ten out of ten. I recommend VMware NSX because it's a powerful tool. We can see the flows inside the SDN, which has a lot of power.

It is for internal networking. Basically, we will be migrating the workloads to the cloud vCenter, and to manage those workloads, networking is required, which is called NSX in the VMware environment.

It provides a single pane of glass. You can do the switching, routing, load balancing, IPS, IDS, etc. Everything is under one umbrella. So, there is no vendor dependency over there.

They have some limitations in the firewall features as compared to the on-prem or dedicated hardware appliance. They can add more features, such as IPS and IDS, to the cloud firewall.

I have been using this solution for the last seven to eight months.

As per my last seven to eight months of experience, it is a stable solution.

It can be scaled.

I'm not technically involved with technical support. I'm not from the operational part where the day-to-day activities are performed. I'm from the project team, and my job is to deploy something on the product. Untill now, I haven't used VMware support for any issues. So, I'm not aware of the quality of their support.

It was easy to set up. It hardly took a week.

It provides all the networking features under a single umbrella. So, you can go with it. It is cost-effective because you don't have to spend money on different vendors.

I would rate it a seven out of ten because some of the features are missing.