I think they need to continue developing their load balancing and possibly even a more efficient DNS system. User interfaces are dependent on each customer, whether they're going to use something like Grafana or, in our case at Cisco, we will be using Splunk. The observability parts within Timescape are fine, and I am sure they will improve over time. Governance and security depend on the approach each customer will take to deploying the systems. You can do the minimums or really dive into observability and governance over any of the ecosystems. This is an individual journey, and Isovalent makes it easier. Before Isovalent, we struggled with just simple pod observability with products like Kalisti that sat on the side of the sidecar. Adding all these products added latency, so we tuned the environment as quickly as possible to be as efficient as possible, especially if you're using cloud resources.
DevOps Engineer at a university with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Jul 4, 2026
Regarding features, I can speak about the docs, which were very good regarding deep networking and the internal workings of Cilium, but sometimes I think they could be better, specifically for best practices. Some parts need improvement in including best practices for each section, such as upgrading or implementing it, because I had some problems with setting up with Helm, and then I used Cilium CLI. Then I understood Cilium CLI is the same as using Helm, so that was beneficial, but the docs of Cilium could be better. I think the assumption for the readers is that they have really good deep knowledge about networking, but sometimes, in my opinion, to share something with that good performance and those good tools, we need to make it simpler to teach others about eBPF. I read the book about eBPF shared on LinkedIn, and it was a good book, but we can make it simpler by sharing best practices and conducting interviews with users about how they utilize that, making it easier for everyone to start and understand. Improving the documents is important. I remember when I set up the Hubble UI, there was a bug, but it is already fixed because when I updated, it was resolved. The bug was when I implemented and set up Cilium CNI, Hubble could not run, but after I upgraded the Cilium version, it was fixed. For improvements, having some tools for debugging eBPF at the kernel level could help. I know we have those, and I use them, but a better UI for that would be beneficial. Also, the documentation can be better and more straightforward, perhaps offering two versions—for those who want to learn more and for those who just want to implement with less focus on the deeper networking aspects. I would rate Isovalent an eight or nine because almost everything is fine, with very good quality and support in the open-source community. However, as I said, the documents can be improved, and as a DevOps engineer, I always look for best practices to set up or configure something easily. While best practices are environment-based, there are some default best practices that could be highlighted somewhere to make it much easier for others to set up these tools.
I am not sure how Isovalent can be improved as they are doing very well. I know their developer teams and sometimes discuss new features and abilities, but as of now, they are progressing well, and their new features seem good.
Senior Principal Engineer at a outsourcing company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
Top 20
May 17, 2026
I believe Isovalent has everything we need right now, and I cannot comment on what features they should add. However, if they can tackle and showcase more end-to-end use cases to the audience using online platforms like YouTube or other formats, they can represent their ideas better. Sharing end-to-end use cases that can be achieved using Cilium would be great for people to look into and then apply to their specific use cases.
Isovalent offers cutting-edge networking and security solutions for Kubernetes environments, empowering enterprises with enhanced control and visibility.Isovalent leverages eBPF technology to redefine cloud-native network and security management. By enabling seamless monitoring and security operations within Kubernetes, Isovalent supports businesses in managing workloads efficiently, enhancing observability, and ensuring robust security measures. It provides a scalable architecture that...
I think they need to continue developing their load balancing and possibly even a more efficient DNS system. User interfaces are dependent on each customer, whether they're going to use something like Grafana or, in our case at Cisco, we will be using Splunk. The observability parts within Timescape are fine, and I am sure they will improve over time. Governance and security depend on the approach each customer will take to deploying the systems. You can do the minimums or really dive into observability and governance over any of the ecosystems. This is an individual journey, and Isovalent makes it easier. Before Isovalent, we struggled with just simple pod observability with products like Kalisti that sat on the side of the sidecar. Adding all these products added latency, so we tuned the environment as quickly as possible to be as efficient as possible, especially if you're using cloud resources.
Regarding features, I can speak about the docs, which were very good regarding deep networking and the internal workings of Cilium, but sometimes I think they could be better, specifically for best practices. Some parts need improvement in including best practices for each section, such as upgrading or implementing it, because I had some problems with setting up with Helm, and then I used Cilium CLI. Then I understood Cilium CLI is the same as using Helm, so that was beneficial, but the docs of Cilium could be better. I think the assumption for the readers is that they have really good deep knowledge about networking, but sometimes, in my opinion, to share something with that good performance and those good tools, we need to make it simpler to teach others about eBPF. I read the book about eBPF shared on LinkedIn, and it was a good book, but we can make it simpler by sharing best practices and conducting interviews with users about how they utilize that, making it easier for everyone to start and understand. Improving the documents is important. I remember when I set up the Hubble UI, there was a bug, but it is already fixed because when I updated, it was resolved. The bug was when I implemented and set up Cilium CNI, Hubble could not run, but after I upgraded the Cilium version, it was fixed. For improvements, having some tools for debugging eBPF at the kernel level could help. I know we have those, and I use them, but a better UI for that would be beneficial. Also, the documentation can be better and more straightforward, perhaps offering two versions—for those who want to learn more and for those who just want to implement with less focus on the deeper networking aspects. I would rate Isovalent an eight or nine because almost everything is fine, with very good quality and support in the open-source community. However, as I said, the documents can be improved, and as a DevOps engineer, I always look for best practices to set up or configure something easily. While best practices are environment-based, there are some default best practices that could be highlighted somewhere to make it much easier for others to set up these tools.
I am not sure how Isovalent can be improved as they are doing very well. I know their developer teams and sometimes discuss new features and abilities, but as of now, they are progressing well, and their new features seem good.
I believe Isovalent has everything we need right now, and I cannot comment on what features they should add. However, if they can tackle and showcase more end-to-end use cases to the audience using online platforms like YouTube or other formats, they can represent their ideas better. Sharing end-to-end use cases that can be achieved using Cilium would be great for people to look into and then apply to their specific use cases.