Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Huawei Enterprise Routers.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
The integration process of the solution could be improved, to reduce the amount of reconfiguration needed. Also, it would be better if local storage management was more flexible, so that unused data could be easily removed.
Huawei Enterprise Routers can improve by enhancing their security. The software architecture and the operating system that runs on their router and the security capability are not as strong when compared to Cisco. In an upcoming release, they should add more integration for mobile applications with the capability of management monitoring the network remotely.
The only problem I see is configuration loss. Sometimes you configure it and it loses the connection, so you have to do it again.
We do occasionally face some bugs. Normally, if we are facing some bugs, then we will coordinate with tech support. As compared to Cisco, it needs to improve. Cisco is the market leader. As compared to Cisco and Huawei needs to improve more and offer the same things as Cisco. For example, features, deployments, with respect to support, with respect to local partners. There is not much of a technical team for Huawei available in Pakistan as compared to Cisco with respect to very complex networks. We need to engage some foreign help in order to deploy properly. We didn't have any local technical people available in Pakistan. Normally, we need to turn to either China or Egypt to get the expertise. Normally we are using dynamic routing ACL for normal things that we are using currently - such as the IP side, VPN, and everything. All the features are available for the organization's needs. However, for the SD-WAN feature, obviously, we require it nowadays. In Fortinet, we get the SD-WAN feature. Huawei, they are testing this, however, it's not there yet. They need to improve it.
It's difficult for me to explain which direction Huawei routers should improve because I have never used one in a large service provider, but I have experience with Cisco and Juniper and have worked with fragments of both, so I can compare how Huawei works. However, when it comes to small software devices and branch devices, Huawei devices are all the same, in my opinion, and they should follow the same guidelines as large providers. For example, some techniques such as SD-WAN or something similar. But I'm not sure whether Huawei uses SD-WAN or not. I am aware that Huawei manufactures a wide range of devices. I am familiar with both storage and Huawei storage. I was very surprised to discover that they work well and make use of their internal OEM processor. If Huawei can use its own OEM processor, it could be a good step up for future use in the network devices.
We have found we have to restart the routers or reconfigured them a lot of the time, this issue should improve. The quality of the hardware needs to be more durable.
Huawei needs to be a bit more open with their licensing model. What I find is that when you buy equipment, you expect that you have a particular feature. By the time you want to use that feature, you realize that you need to acquire a license for it. That is the one thing that I think they need to improve on. Essentially, they need to open their licensing model such that when a customer buys a device, they have a full view of all of the available licenses for it. It's not at the time of use that the customer will now be informed that they need to purchase an additional license.
We've only been testing the solution for a month and our main concern is stability. We wanted to see if it's as stable as, for example, Cisco. So far, that has not been the case. The router recently failed on us, and we had to end the test. In my country we don't have Huawei technology, we only have Huawei routers for ISP. There is no agent for Huawei in Egypt. In the end, the router was incompatible with the bundles. It's difficult to get the scalability right. There's a gap between their online support and documentation.
Additional security enhancement would make this solution better. In the next release of this solution, I would like to see better bandwidth management, more granular web filtering, and portal authentication.